(1) Yes, people should resist the urge to form opinions until they’ve studied the issue.

(2) No, it’s not stupid to have a strong opinion based on feelings and not facts – it is stupid to have a strong opinion, much of the time, to have such an opinion based on feelings in spite of the facts.

(3) It’s easier to have a strong opinion about something the less information you have on it, I think. The more information you have on most issues, then the more complex they seem. Opinions are generally fine. Strong ones are dangerous. Conclusions are perhaps the most dangerous of all.

I’m just astounded as to how many people have any opinions based on corporate media and don’t see the obvious corporate bias.

“It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else.”
—Anthony Weston

I think you’ve put your finger on it right in the question: they’re not responsible thinkers. We’d all be better off if we were less afraid of the words “I don’t know.”

I once worked with a guy who embodied liberal views on social issues.

By his actions, he clearly:

—thought all people were equal.

—thought that people who were hurting deserved a helping hand.

And yet, if you talked to him, he adamantly espoused conservative views. He was a former Marine.

I have seen this over and over again where people will self-identify one way politically, and then express views at odds with the political person or party they support.

It is surprising to say the least. I think that ability to view a political party or position in one light while acting in another is part of the problem.

My guess is these people have lived their wholes being told what to do, and following it. Church says do this…parents say do this…teachers say do this…comply, comply comply, obedience, obedience, obedience. Taught that part of respect and being a good person is to agree with and follow the people they are told are their mentors. Never to question. Of, course the way I worded this is an exaggeration, and they do question, but they do not question the people they choose to be their leaders.

I once saw this show about some South American dictator, can’t remember which one, and one conclusion drawn by the person analyzing the leader and the citizens of the country, was the leader becomes like God. Makes me think of North Korea. That he is believed and not questioned, and almost worshipped.

I see this in our politics too. Some Bush followers were so dedicated to him, and would not say something that might show disloyality. I guess maybe they fear criticism from their group if they have a decenting view on an issue?

Anyway, they do not need to really know the reason behind anything if they are simply required to have blind faith in the people they trust. People in their church, community, Limbaugh, a specific politician, etc.

@marinelife A recent study that showed that atheists and agnostics know more about the bible than supposedly religious folks has lead to a lot of talk about people simply believing certain things about religion and politics because of identity, that is, they identify culturally with the church or party (or both). This is probably how most people operate, as we live in a culture that promotes branding and identifying more with celebrities (politicians?) than with ourselves and our minds.

@marinelife I have encountered that a lot. Sometimes it depends what topic you are talking about. For instance he majority of my closest friends think similar to me on most political issues, but I choose to identify closer to the party that agrees with my social views, and they identify closer with the party that is closer to their fiscal views. All of my friends from college are pro Gay Marriage for instance, they are all Catholic, some very religious, but most of them are Republicans, except for one Dem, and one independent.

But, sometimes they truly don’t make any sense, like you are implying. I know people who say they are pro-life, vote pro-life, but then when their was something wrong with their fetus, they aborted. For sure they would never tell the people in their church. If pro-life in its stictest sense really took hold of our laws, they would have had to see that pregnancy through. But, some of them still consider themselves pro-life. I do know one couple who after aborting because there was no way the fetus would survive more than few hours once born, and having to travel almost 3 hours to another state, because our city does not do abortions after 14 weeks, they changed how they thought about the topic. But it had to happen to them personally for them to listen and think, or give a damn about the many reaspns to keep it legal and safe.

@marinelife

I don’t understand the contradiction that you seemed to see in your former colleague. Conservatism says nothing about people being unequal. In fact though I’m not a ‘conservative’ it seems to me that one of the tenets of the true conservative is that he very strongly believes “we are all equal”. (Which explains why many conservatives strongly oppose racial quotas and affirmative action, for example, but are not necessarily racist.) Likewise, ‘giving people a hand’ is a common enough trait among conservatives, too.

@Kraigmo

Regarding your example of your friend at the party, he may not have been prepared to give a critique about why he felt the way he did about Moore, but it doesn’t mean that his opinion of him is invalid. I formed my own opinion of the man with his first few films, and I’d have a hard time, if put on the spot right now, recalling and detailing all of his ‘selective (and out of context) editing’ and ‘ambush journalism’ tactics that made me decide that his veracity was always going to be in question, since his politics dictated his film-making.

Otherwise, the criticism is valid, but it goes both ways. I’m tired of every single argument that I’ve ever heard in favor of government spending for one program or another that’s based on little more than the premise that “they can afford it; they’ve got plenty of money”.

I think if you are the sort of person who has the time and inclination to study all aspects of every little thing that influences your life and the lives of the populace then you would agree with @Kraigmo.

But, I think it is almost impossible to study all aspects of anything because everything that is written about any given subject is done so with a liberal dose of the particular bias of the reporter.

I also think a lot of people simply base their opinions of their life experiences. And let’s face it opinions are like rectums, (almost) everyone has one and thanks to the first amendment are entitled to espouse them.

Not everyone wants to enter into a formal debate, they just want to say their piece and that’s that. It doesn’t bother me if they have government studies, newspaper articles, statistics, or whatever to prove their position, to me it is still simply their opinion influenced by whatever source they use to form them.

@rooeytoo – having an opinion and saying your piece isn’t really the issue, though. It’s having a strong and passionate opinion that is.

@iamthemob – me thinks you are getting into semantics. To me there is no difference. Some people just have the sort of personality that means when they say their piece it is their strong and passionate opinion, they simply don’t have the need to make the world see it their way or publicly state every source that contributed to the formation of that opinion.

I asked a guy how he felt about the healthcare debate, and all he could say was: It doesn’t work, the people in Europe…have you seen their teeth? I’m not an expert, either, but I wouldn’t try to sound like one lol.

It would seem you’re trying to play the ‘Gotcha’ game and and assigning some level of ignorance to it. If the guy said Moore was a ‘big government guy’ you would have a hard time refuting that. Even a passing knowledge of his adulation of Castro and Chavez would show that. Bit you didn’t ask about that, you asked him to show where Moore lied, a completely different question. And one that requires very specific quotes and generally subjective answers.

I think your playing games to try and make yourself look more informed to somehow justify your position. If you think the person doesn’t know what they’re talking about, ask them something that they’re actually talking about.

Whether it’s “stupid” or not is largely irrelevant since your chances of changing it approach zero as a limit!

One thing to keep in mind though, is that many people ( both intelligent and non- ) have little or no desire to immerse themselves in the minutiae of politicis; they choose someone with whom they agree on most things, and let those people tell them what to support and what to not support. This is akin to choosing your “expert” in whatever field, and then deciding things based on their opinion.

@rooeytoo – Not at all. There’s a huge difference between a strong opinion and a general one. There’s an emotional component and a certainty in a strong opinion that isn’t present in opinions that we hold simply because the evidence we’ve seen so far supports it.

But true – there are people that simply say their piece about opinions that they hold strongly. And there’s no need to get into formal debate in order to have a discussion (I think debate as a tool is extremely overrated, personally). But if you hold a strong opinion on something and you are unable to reasonably support it, you should have that questioned. Opinions influence action, and opinoins that are both incorrect and inspire action that is harmful should be called out. So it’s inappropriate to claim that opinions are generally equivalent as much of the time we get information in some biased format and everyone has an opinion anyway, and who has the time regardless, negates the fact that there are real, practical concerns.

@Jaxk – The example does not color the question one way or another, does it? It’s still about whether we seek out information before we assert something as knowledge, or instead accept it from the sources that seem to already agree with us.

@Jaxk Even if the first question about Moore was changing the topic, the other person quickly shifted back. But the problem is that he couldn’t support any of his positions.

The example features someone characterized as a conservative, but the question is posed in terms of what Americans, and Earthlings in general, are to do. The question, then, is more about a human trait than any given political persuasion. People of all sorts are prone to this sort of behavior.

@SavoirFaire

I beg to differ. The question is obviously about belittling conservatives. I have a cousin, dyed in the wool liberal. We have what I consider, amusing debates. She can virtually never back up any of her positions. Is it because she’s stupid? Far from it. She just doesn’t have the interest to research her positions. And if she did, it wouldn’t change her belief system. She’s a liberal and as such would find the arguments that back up her initial belief. We all do.

The problem here is the need to make yourself right, by making the other person wrong. It’s one of my pet peeves. I’ve known people all my life that think they can make themselves look good by making others look bad. It’s a very common political ploy.

The biggest word in your question if if. Unfortunately very few people are responsible thinkers and opinions are common to everyone, knowledgeable, responsible, or other.

I just had a brief conversation today witn some friends about a local political situation with our public schools. I asked some questions about what is being argued right now among a lot of people here in my community, because I don’t understand some of the supposed logic regarding the issue. I stated I don’t have an opinion, and soeone said, “you must have an opinion.” Well, no I don’t. I don’t have enough information to form an opinion. Not just on the specific details of the situation here, but also on gathering examples around the country of cities in similar circumstance previously and what happened when changes were made similar to what they are suggesting here.

My point of that story is…I think people many times feel like they have to pick a side. They feel loath to say, I don’t know, I don’t understand the situation well enough to know, or what I thought all along might be incorrect.

I have generally stopped bothering to listen to/read the news. It’s because from personal, first hand experience, I have come to understand that so much of it is hype, it’s hardly worth watching anymore. What folks don’t seem to remember is that news isn’t news unless someone watches it. And if you have the truth that’s not exciting and a half-truth that is, well, they’ll go for the half-truth just about every time. The problem is that you cannot tell which stories are half truths, and which are true ones.

These days when I hear about something going on in the news, I ask myself, “Now how much of THAT story is true?” They take the meaning of gossip to a whole new level.

This does not mean I have no opinion about stuff, but under the circumstances, I find it hardly worthwhile to have a debate with poorly informed people.

@Jaxk , I chose the most recent example that came to mind. I could have asked an ardent Democrat why they support the recently passed health care bill, and the odds are: they’d either not be able to answer, or they’d say “well at least you cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions now”, and that would be the sum of their knowledge.

Party loyalists on both sides tend to be the very people I’m talking about here, since they have an agenda to uphold their ego and world view, and no agenda to do research, generally.

My question here has nothing to do with belittling conservatives, except in the sense maybe they feel compelled to support an ”-ism” which creates a biased mind. Doesn’t matter if it’s liberalism or conservatism.

And as for the line of questions I asked the anti-Moore guy…. Where should I have started? He made a sweeping statement, based no a sweeping world view, and no facts or any planks whatsoever to support his mental platform. My follow up question to him was one of a thousand I could have picked.

The end result of the symptom i’m complaining about is a government that is far more dysfunctional than it needs to be, since so many decisions are based on a desire to please an electorate that uses the very faulty thinking I’m questioning right here.

If everyone either did research (or stayed out of the argument), and put truth above ego/group loyalty when it comes to learning new facts… we’d have a far more just and effective government, and far easier personal lives, too.

And like I said, I can respect conservatives like Ron Paul who are able to articulate the scientific-type rationale (or Socratic-type analysis) behind their arguments. Try getting your average cable-news watcher with strong opinions to do that.

@Jaxk Well, it seems that @Kraigmo has already clarified the question. But the evidence is right there at the top of the page. From the original question:

”...or if he’s not influenced by a TV personality, he’s just parroting what he learned from his dad or spouse (like almost all people with strong opinions and no facts).”

“And I don’t mean to imply that only intelligent people want government-run healthcare. I’m sure there are some intelligent arguments against it. I’ve heard plausible arguments from Ron Paul, for example. (But certainly, not most of his supporters).”

So care was taken from the start to make this not a conservative vs. liberal issue.

As for research not changing people’s opinions, it is a lamentable truth that many people suffer from confirmation bias. Perhaps we all do. But it is not the case that we all do all the time, and I worry that your comment is an attempt to justify not fixing your own confirmation biases. Maybe it’s not. I don’t know. I’ve certainly changed many of my political beliefs over time, and many of my philosophical beliefs as well. It’s quite possible that your cousin has, too. Just not the beliefs that you two happen to debate.

And, of course, some debates are not entirely about matters of fact. Many political debates are matters of preferences. Conservatives may be completely correct that policy A will have result B, and liberals may be completely correct that policy C will have result D. Yet there can still be disagreement over which of B and D is preferable. And there may not be any facts about the matter other than which is preferred by more people. That’s life.

Many people believe they have a perceived knowledge on certain issues. Even though they don’t know what they are talking about or have any education at all in the subject they feel as though they know something about. Mainly it has to do with their social and political status.They beleive everything they hear and learn nothing.

@SavoirFaire

I admit I totally disagree with premise that those with out the facts shouldn’t have an opinion. At least in politics even the facts seem to be changing on a regular basis. Such as Fact: “the health Care bill is paid for and won’t add to the deficit”. Well, that’s not really a fact. It is an opinion, a guess at best. Every time the CBO looks at it the numbers change. And how much will we really get from Medicare. Hell, nobody knows. And how do you say it’s paid for when you weigh 10 years of revenue against 6 years of cost? And when has the government cost estimate ever had any resemblance to the actual cost? Hell even the pre-existing conditions is having trouble. Insurance carriers are denying coverage to entire groups (like children) to compensate for the pre-existing requirement. Hell one of the facts presented to us originally was that this was not a tax. Well that seems to be debatable as well. Hell, holder is arguing to the court that it is a tax while Obama is still telling us he’s lowering our tax. Let’s not even talk about the constitutionality of this whole thing since there won’t be any facts until the court finally rules. Given that scenario, we can’t have an opinion on the constitutionality because there are no facts. And of course the fact that if you like your coverage you can keep it, only pertains to those that don’t get dropped by their company or thier carrier. And of course only if it fits the criteria that has yet to be created. Given the criteria, it’s little wonder your having trouble finding someone with the facts.

@Jaxk I’ve never said that the absence of unquestioned and unquestionable facts was a prerequisite for having an opinion on something like the health care bill. One could be opposed to the bill regardless of the facts, for instance, on conceptual grounds. My point is a very old one, stated by David Hume as “a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.”

We all have to get by on what evidence we have. To quote another philosopher, this time William James, “we have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood.” But many people are content to live by yesterday’s truths, not today’s. Yes, issues like the health care bill are complex. Yes, it may be difficult to know precisely what is and is not the case regarding it. This just means that a responsible thinker tempers his claims about it accordingly and is up front about the limits of his knowledge. Using the complexity as an excuse for irresponsible thinking is juvenile.

@SavoirFaire

The David Hume quote is good but fairly subjective. Which really is my point. If you ask me what I think of the health care bill and I tell I hate it because Obama said the bill would reduce costs and my premiums have gone up. You may drag out all the charts on how much the insurance companies make, how much they spend on administration, how much they spent lobbying for or against the bill, all stuff I may not know. All stuff you believe is pertinent. My opinion is thus poorly formed, ignorant, and shouldn’t be expressed.

But the truth is that over time we’ll have a better idea whether it does or doesn’t affect the health care costs and my opinion may very well be spot on. In politics we’re not talking about how a nuclear reactor works, we’re talking about whether they are good or bad. How they work is very factual and if you don’t know you certainly can’t explain it. Whether they are good or bad is a completely different issue and very subjective. And I believe your opinion about the good or bad aspects are just as valid as mine (though I may try to sway you, usually with facts or figures). But I wouldn’t say you shouldn’t have an opinion.

@SavoirFaire – I’m confused…didn’t you say I’ve never said that the absence of unquestioned and unquestionable facts was a prerequisite for having an opinion on something like the health care bill.? And To quote another philosopher, this time William James, “we have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood.”?

Why would that be interpreted in any way to mean that one shouldn’t have an opinion? Aren’t you stating that opinions, even those that have a fair dose of emotions, are not the issue? I read your comments to mean that if you are expressing your opinion as an assertion, or a conclusion, or a claim about something that it is irresponsible, and perhaps willfully ignorant, to not incorporate new evidence into the argument.

@iamthemob

It is the original question that states: “shouldn’t they have no opinions at all on it?”.

My only comment on you quote was that it was subjective. Sorry, I probably wasn’t clear on that.

@iamthemob Your reading of my comment seems to be correct. We’re you thinking I was inconsistent somewhere, or was your clarification for @Jaxk‘s sake?

@Jaxk I don’t understand the point of your response, given what I have already said to you here. I understand that there is a difference between issues of fact and issues of preference, and indeed I brought up the distinction before you did. Opinions based on preferences can still be argued, since the reasons why one thinks something is preferable might be faulty (e.g., if you prefer item A because it is heavier than the others and you want the heaviest object, the fact of A being the heaviest object may be questioned even if your desire for the heaviest object must be left alone). But I haven’t denied any of this above.

When I quoted Hume, it was after to clarify my position after it became apparent here that you had misunderstood my position. You started out that response by saying that you “totally disagree with premise that those with out the facts shouldn’t have an opinion.” I noted that I was not holding to that premise, but rather making a different point altogether.

@SavoirFaire

I’d like to understand your position but the original question keeps getting in my way. And so far, I’m not sure where you stand on that. Nor (from the original question and your own response) do I know how much information (facts if you will) you need to have an opinion.

You seem to be arguing that new data should be incorporated into your assessment. I have no issue with that not do I know anyone that doesn’t do that. The problems usually come in where you have to determine the validity of the new data and the relevance. If you use the ‘Item A’ example and you prove that Item B is heavier than Item A, I may respond in a couple of ways. Change my mind and go for Item B (it really is heavier) or stick with Item A because it is also more appealing (basically alter my original criteria). In either case, I’ve incorporated the new data. What I don’t see happening is a response like “oh, item B is heavier, sorry I should not have had an opinion”.

@Jaxk

You can have an opinion about anything. The OP didn’t ask about that. You can have a strong opinion about anything. The OP didn’t ask about that. What the OP asked about was why people formed strong opinions about things that they have done very little research on, especially about very important issues. What’s even worse, they’ll argue from those positions.

Consider the “Obama is a Muslim” crazy lade from the McCain rallies back in ‘08. McCain told her, point blank, she was wrong. However, she continued to believe and spread information about it, seeking out only that which proved her point and believing only the same.

I don’t know why you keep latching onto this imaginary prohibition on having opinions until all information is gathered. This is about strong opinions on big ticket items and why people stick firmly to positions regardless of whether they are right or wrong. It’s been repeatedly told you by many on this thread that you can have an opinion if you want…for instance. The OP tried to clarify to you that it’s about when one’s position interferes with their ability to adjust to new information. And yet, you seem unable to incorporate that information, or incorporate it in a manner (as above) so that you’re talking about the issue you want to rather than address what the OP is asking about, or understand that no one here except you it seems is that anyone can have an opinion, if they want.

What’s truly amazing is that, in refusing to listen here, you’re embodying the problem that the OP is concerned about. For that, I personally thank you.

@iamthemob

Nice try but you may want to go back and read the thread. In fact if you want to incorporate what was said into your argument, it may become a little more informed argument. We started with this:

“If they are responsible thinkers, shouldn’t they have no opinions at all on it?”

And then clarified with this:

“If everyone either did research (or stayed out of the argument),”

So if your point is they can have an opinion but shouldn’t voice it, My argument doesn’t change. The main point here is that everyone, including the guy that doesn’t like Moore, has some information to give rise an opinion. It may be faulty or incomplete. The very fact that he was deemed ignorant because he didn’t debate about Moore, is a testimony to the idea that @Kraigmo came up with a opinion based little or incomplete information.

And frankly, only Obama knows whether he is Christian, Muslim, atheist or something else. Frankly I hope he keeps it to himself.

@Jaxk

Nice try but you might actually want to read what you have quoted in context and without your assertions surrounding what it means coloring your interpretation, because although those are the only places it does come close, the argument is still not and no one has said “don’t have an opinion.”

The first statement deals with the responsibility – it is, in fact, irresponsible to form an opinion on the issue if you haven’t looked into any of the information about it (the opinion referring at that point to people who do not read the news or do so minimally forming a strong opinion about global issues).

The second was selected out of the full sentence – and doesn’t mention opinions, but was stating that we shouldn’t take positions on a topic, or argue positions, until informed on them instead of listening to what the “voice of the party” is telling us we should believe.

So you’ve taken ½ of the summary question (ignoring the details and the clarification fleshing out what that part means) and ½ of a sentence (which doesn’t have the word “opinion” at all) to demonstrate (falsely, as I did my own little ctrl f) that I was wrong – which oddly sounds like something you hate when you say the following:

The problem here is the need to make yourself right, by making the other person wrong. It’s one of my pet peeves. I’ve known people all my life that think they can make themselves look good by making others look bad. It’s a very common political ploy.

Regardless, the argument is why people aren’t, and to what extent they should, be responsible for their opinions on major issues, and how often they’re merely sheeple. You just want to quibble over whether we inevitably have opinions – that’s the simplest and least important part of the discussion. And in again going back to the Michael Moore situation example, your putting your own spin on how it went down, while the OP was actually there (we can tell, often, more about whether someone knows what they’re talking about face to face). Also, the details say that the person didn’t refuse or simply not debate about Moore…he just didn’t answer a question which could have been based in fact. And finally, as you’ve also been told repeatedly, it was an example meant to illuminate a problem – a stalwart stance accepting with little analysis what the party line is instead of being responsible and looking for information independently.

So the issue isn’t “do people come up with opinions regardless of whether they have some, all, or even good information?”. You seem to have missed that’s already settled – clear yes. The issue is why does this happen, and discussing the negative impact it has on our government. None of us has time to look into all the information on everything. However, the problem is that people tend to listen to their favorite pundits opinions on the topic first, adopt that, and stick by it regardless…and both vote and attempt to convince others to do so based on that, and refuse to listen to people arguing the contrary. It’s taking the most complex issue and sticking by any argument based on an -ism related big principle like “big government is bad” or “government has your best interests at heart.”

This makes us bad citizens. It makes us vote against our interests. And if people would quiet down, listen, and read more instead of feeling the need to advocate, it would get a whole lot quieter, and better answers might be a whole lot clearer. Then we’d be responsible.

@iamthemob

“It makes us vote against our interests”

Where have I heard that line before. And what, oh what, could it mean? I’ll ponder that and get back to you.

The problem is and has been from the start, that those that disagree with us, or don’t accept our talking points are more ignorant and should stay out of the debate. I think the debate is good for us even if we are sometimes wrong. And the last thing I want to see is a public that will sit back and shut up, while the elite debate what’s in our best interest.

@Jaxk

I don’t see how that’s the problem at all, from a general perspective. There’s no issue with voicing an opinion at any point, as long as the opinion is reasonable in scope, or isn’t an assertion about the truth. A broad assertion about the nature of something as absolute, unless clearly personal, is something that you should have to back up.

Pundits depend on keeping us in ignorance about the facts of most situations, instead calling out that we make conclusions on the spin. If we’re simply the voice of those pundits when debating the issue, then there’s no functional difference between us shutting up and letting the elite debate what’s in our best interests.

There is a difference, however, in the fact that the function is more effective – we do what they want because our neighbors are saying the same thing as our pundits. We think less for ourselves. We’re reinforced against hearing those that don’t agree with us, and are more likely to consider them ignorant, and think they should stay out of the debate. But it shouldn’t be a debate – it should be dialectical.

State your opinion, but in the end, make sure it’s your own.

@iamthemob

“Pundits depend on keeping us in ignorance about the facts of most situations, instead calling out that we make conclusions on the spin.”

Now that sounds like an assertion of the truth. Pundits are paid to express an opinion (in general). And every pundit I know has counter opinions and interviews on the show to debate both sides. With the possible exception of comics or entertainment such as Jon Stewart or Rush Limbaugh. The idea that they want to keep you ignorant of the facts is a pretty wild assertion.

“If we’re simply the voice of those pundits when debating the issue, then there’s no functional difference between us shutting up and letting the elite debate what’s in our best interests.”

Another pretty wild assertion. The difference is, I get to choose.

@Jaxk

You have stated:

“Being a lawyer does not mean your any better or worse than anybody else but it does mean your more sympathetic to lawyers. Just as another profession. And if there is any hope of becoming a slightly less litigious nation, we won’t get there by electing more lawyers. You shouldn’t need to hire a lawyer to get fair treatment on virtually any issue but you do. Lawyers saw to that. The ‘Trial Lawyers’ are one of the most influential lobbies in Washington. That’s not an accident nor coincidence.
The lawyers are not good at common sense arguments but rather good at confusing the issue. That’s the whole point. If you can get a jury confused about what the law says or about how the events took place, then you have a chance to get them believe your interpretation of the events. It’s not about clarity, it’s about confusing the issues. They do that in their arguments, their interpretations, and their writings. The language they use is a tool in doing that” (Your response on another post).

You say lawyers, I say pundits. Pundits give opinions not facts. They may include facts in their opinions – but in the end, in a 24 hour news cycle, it’s the best soundbite that’s often accepted as fact.

I mean you seem concerned about this when you say:

“As for the rest of your post, it is standard talking points. The NY times and every other organization donates to political parties, mostly Democrats. I don’t get your point. If you want to hear a propaganda mil, try listening to MSNBC. Or is that where you got these talking points.”

But I guess it’s only damaging if it’s _liberal propaganda. And that propaganda can confuse people into voting in ways you find inappropriate, as when you state:_

“We wanted to believe so bad that we didn’t look for details. I’m not sure that stupid, rather a little naive. Now we are seeing the details and we don’t like it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. It won’t be so easy next time. Obama has woken the sleeping giant. That’s a good thing.”

That seems, oddly, to indicate that you actually _do think people should find out the truth for themselves, but that they were confused at first by “talking points” ... that might have been just the liberals though…_

Finally, my favorite:

“Let’s see, after 9/11 when the twin towers came down, there were Muslims celebrating in the streets around the world. I can only assume, those would be the moderates. When Nicholas Cage was beheaded, Al Jazeera ran the tape. How many million hits did it get? I assume the moderates simply couldn’t take their eyes off this atrocity.
I find the comparison to the Catholic child abuse cases particularly strange. It was Catholics that turned them in, Catholics that brought the charges, and Catholics that testified against them. Do you people even read what you write.
According to Masab Yousuf there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. He has some credibility being the son of Hamas leader Sheik Hassan Yousef and working in Hamas for years with his father.

…

Since most of the terrorism in the last 40 years has been based on Islam and the plight of the Palestinians, I would think the opinion of a high ranking Palestinian and Muslim, would be of particular interest. At least more so than the opinion of a shop keeper in Nebraska.” (Another of your responses)

You do get to choose. And as clear in the above, you’ve chosen to invest in Islamophobia. Or at least base or present your opinion, or something read as your opinion, on part of the information. There’s a lot of “they” in the above statement.

What’s amazing, of course, is the fact that Western Muslims, and Muslim groups, have repeatedly attempted to voice a position of Muslims that is one of cooperation, peace, etc. These groups have declared a jihad on _terrorism (something that affects other Muslims more than anyone else, as they are the most frequent victims of Muslim terrorism). But it’s been drowned out by people declaring things like “Most terrorism is Muslim” (check your FBI stats on that one, as well as those from Europol). And you repeat it._

The danger, of course, in believing that it’s okay to not inform yourself before you really settle on your opinions, or to hold strong opinions before getting into the conversation, or by not listening to the other side, is that it drives prejudice, and makes people claim outrageous and bigotted things like “There’s no such thing as a moderate Muslim” – not only claim it, but try to convince other people of the same.

And for someone who really seems to be interested in hearing all opinions, it’s interesting in your three months here, you have only responded to questions, almost exclusively to disagree or undermine or accuse them of putting a spin on something. Hundreds of times. But you’ve never, ever managed to ask a single question. Not one. It really does seem like you’ve decided you already have all the answers.

@iamthemob

Wow, you’re good. I did say all those things, I just don’t see how that contradicts what I’m saying now. If you’re really into it, I spent more that two years on Askville and there are tons of responses there. When Askville changed their format so that it was no longer fun, I looked for another site that would be. I didn’t want a conservative site where everyone slapped themselves on the back, I wanted a more liberal site where I might get a little diversity. So here I am, much to your dismay.

I’ll give you one point, I don’t ask questions anymore (I did for a while on Askville). Unfortunately if I ask a question I feel obligated to stick around and respond even when I can’t or don’t want to. Just an obligation I don’t need right now. My whole purpose in being on these sites is to learn. Not just from the others although I do that as well, but in my own responses as well. If you say something I disagree with, I have to do some research to find the discrepancy. Either in my own position or in yours. And I not only like to be informed but I like to hear the opinions from others. Even if they are not informed. Which takes me back to my point.

You say I shouldn’t express my opinion unless I’m informed. Then you cite numerous examples of statements where I obviously had some passing knowledge of the subject. It is not informed that you’re looking for. It is agreement. Trying to throw the bigot argument at me doesn’t work. I quoted a high ranking Muslim that lived the system for years. I would think, that is exactly the kind of informed back up your clamoring for. Ah but it disagrees with your predetermined position so you call me a bigot.

And to finish this off, the quote about the lawyers is of particular importance. Once you get everyone else to shut up so that those informed elites can determine our fate, it will be the lawyers in Washington that do so. I’m reluctant to go quietly into the night.

@Jaxk

I don’t even really know if you have an opinion really – because you seem intent on simply being contrarian.

I can only keep repeating that the issue has nothing to do whether you should or should not have an opinion, or whether you should express it. Perhaps we need to change the terminology here and separate out opinions (as things that we think, discuss, and modify) and assertions (as things we’ve reached a conclusion on that we think is correct and will attempt to convince others of).

Something like “Michael Moore is _____,” “Bill O’Reilly is ______,” or “Big government is bad” sound more like the “talking points” that you have an issue with, and I do as well – they’re assertions about conclusions drawn from evidence. If the evidence is faulty, ambiguous, unclear, etc., then the assertion is incorrect. But for most it is much more difficult to back down from an assertion like the above than something less declamatory. “I think/feel Michael Moore has more interest in fame than he does in social justice at this point.” I could be wrong on that, and you could show me why. And if so, I’ll change my opinion on that point – but I’ll personally still think that he’s a jackass. But if I claim he is more interested in fame, it becomes, as I loathe personally, more debate than dialectical discussion.

Now, the examples I cited were not about whether I think your opinion on things is actually informed. I actually have no doubt about that – it’s why I continue to respond to you. What I personally and others here have attempted to get through to you appear to have an obsessive focus on the particular points you think are wrong or wrongly stated and that focus is preventing you from actually discussing the issue here. Now, what I’m saying is that ideas or opinions should be expressed any time – I’m a big marketplace of ideas person. I have a problem with the majority of media as they are, essentially, lobbying the public for the most part. And I have a problem that so many people spout the rhetoric they hear when it becomes clear that some pundit is their only source. And I have a problem when they refuse to listen to anything but the position that they agree with.

From our interactions, my problem with you is not that you don’t inform your opinions or assertions or whatever your statement is – it’s that you simplify the opinion to an absurd point (e.g., “You say I shouldn’t express my opinion unless I’m informed) or cherry pick points and research against them to provide counterpoints. Solid as an exercise, but boring in the end from my perspective, because I rarely get your position, but mostly why you disagree with other people’s position. And it’s frustrating as either there are too many details and you only talk about the details because you have a counterpoint, or it’s simplified to a point and you take it literally as the whole discussion even though I repeatedly state “That’s not what I’m saying.”

So it really seems more like you’re practicing your argument and making your point heard. That’s awesome – but it more benefits you than myself. So I’m at the point where I can really just approach you in the same way.

Now, I was ambivalent about the fact that you were surely going to respond to the Muslim bit. I expected something like the response above, but was really hoping deep down that I wasn’t initially right about it being something that you would actually defend. But you did, and that’s kind of sad. You actually said, publicly, that the “bigot argument” doesn’t work because you “quoted a high ranking Muslim that lived in the system for years.” Now of course, that wasn’t all you did, but the quote was stating that there are no moderate Muslims.

Let’s address that. There are hundreds and hundreds of millions of Muslims. They live all over the globe. And you’re willing to stand by the argument that a single individual can claim to accurately describe that many people, with that many backgrounds, accurately? You’re saying that something like that is strong evidence in support of… what, an argument that there’s no such thing as a moderate Muslim? If so…that’s showing the problem of being misinformed or underinformed, rather than something that would qualify as the “information back up [I’m] clamoring for.”

I also don’t understand what my “predetermined position” on this front is – what you think it is at least. In this case, I would say that my position would be that there in fact are moderate Muslims. If that’s what you were thinking – okay…yeah…some guy saying “No they don’t exist” doesn’t sway me regardless of who he is….and I wasn’t calling you a bigot because you presented evidence that there was no such thing as a moderate Muslim…it’s just that if that’s what you believe, it’s pretty much the definition of bigotry.

And the lawyer bit is just…whoa. No one’s advocating anyone shutting up. It’s like you’ve again completely missed my statements about discussing opinions as much as you want, regardless of if you have information – so much of the time that’s how you get information. I said I loved the marketplace of ideas. Why you’re still focusing on that one point oh my good lord God in heaven let him see the light. The point is the vast majority need to listen more to differing viewpoints with actual openness. I thought you would listen to that point when I was using your own words to say it to you…but no? Not even when you said it yourself? You’re still just going to believe that we’re all saying shut up even though we’ve been saying mostly the opposite over and over again? Really? That’s amazing because what has happened, if you’re actually serious, is you seem so dead set on proving me wrong that you are willing to literally ignore what you’ve said in the past that I posted as something that I agreed with generally.

In any case, the super awesome part of that is that although metaphorically you’ve been arguing pretty much with yourself because you’re sticking to a point no one is really debating you’re wrong on, by not acknowledging that when I posted your own words as my point, you are now officially and literally arguing with yourself.

If even you can’t convince you that we actually agree in principle, then I’ve officially run out of ways to try to convince you that we agree for sure.

@iamthemob

You like to chase your arguments in circles. And you like to use your opinions as facts. Something that I thought was the whole point here. As for you FBI stats, I think you’re confusing hate crimes with terrorism but since you didn’t provide any back up, I can only speculate. I suppose you think I’m nitpicking.

And yes, I do focus on the things I think are wrong or poorly stated or simply misinformed. That is afterall the major source of contention between the ideologies of the liberals and conservatives. And I suppose being perfectly frank, I’m on this site because I enjoy it not because I think you do (which you obviously don’t). I do use the site to hone my skills and opinions and if I can shed a little light on an otherwise dark discussion, I will do so.

What I try not to do, is to call people names or use arguments like, Nah Uh. I don’t know if you know anything about Masab Yousuf but he is a rather unique individual. The son of a high ranking and very popular Hamas leader, he worked in Hamas most of his life. He was put in prison in Israel and during that time came to conclusion that Hamas was the problem. He became an Israeli spy and converted to Christianity. With that background I can’t think of another person on earth that would have more unique and pertinent perspective on the problem. Does that mean he’s right about everything he says, not really. But let me give you a little help.

Instead of screaming nah uh, and calling me a bigot for quoting this guy (I can only assume you think he is a bigot as well), you might want to take a different tact. You may respond with something like “this guy may have gone off the deep end when he converted to Christianity”. Hell, I’d find that a fairly believable response. But of course you’d have to know something about him to make that statement. You don’t have to know anything to scream bigot, so that’s the avenue you choose. And much to my amazement, you seem to believe that will advance the debate.

And just to be clear, personally I don’t respond until I feel I have the information (you may disagree). But at the same time, I don’t want anyone to keep thier opinion to themselves just because they can’t back it up. Hell, I’d still like to hear it. That doesn’t mean I won’t pick it apart but it helps me to understand the position.

For example, do you remember the lady at the Obama rally that said (I’m paraphrasing here) ‘he’ll pay my rent and give me gas money’. When asked where the money will come from she said ‘I don’t know, it’s free, it’s Obama money’. In my mind that was a very uninformed supporter. But I don’t want to shut her up, I actually appreciate the point. I never would have guessed that someone would believe that. A little insight into the psychic of the fans.

And as a final note I feel I have to do this since you’ve been calling me names and I don’t want to come across as completely cold and unemotional. You’ve been making one point very clear. When you spout your liberal blather, people don’t respond with agreement. So you assume it is because they are uninformed and set in their opinion with no concern for your facts. Probably not the case. You may want to reconsider your delivery.

My opinion is that you all talk too much about who is allowed to have an opinion.

Here is the bottom line whether you like it or not, everyone can have their own opinion. It doesn’t matter if the basis of their belief is reading 27 newspaper articles, wikipedia or just their own life experience.

Pseudo intellectuals who assume they have the informed point of view are just as biased as the next.

And most interesting is that even the intelligencia have absolutely divergent opinons because their equally informed and voluminous research has come from different sources and has led them to opposite poles.

So get over yourselves and if you don’t like someone else’s opinion, ignore it, that’s what I do especially when reading them is like a long and repetitive novel.

@rooeytoo

Wow, that was short and to the point. And I’d have to say I agree.

But come, be honest, you’ve enjoyed this blather.

@Jaxk – I didn’t mean to be rude, well maybe a little bit terse, but not outright rude. Thanks to the internet I have access to so many news sources and I read extensively. This is how I form my opinions, that and life experience. When someone says to me what is your source, I must admit it annoys me because it is difficult for me to pinpoint. And more importantly I don’t think it is relevant. This is my opinion period. The original question was based on a comment about Michael Moore and annoyed the op because facts could not be presented. Unless I have my laptop with me, I would often find myself in a similar situation. I believe everyone has a right to their opinions and I really don’t think anyone has the imperative to defend their opinions be they strong or mild. Just MHO of course!

@rooeytoo – Fantastic. I agree – and I read it as terse at most, rude not at all.

@Jaxk – Wait – you agree too? Weird…why didn’t I know that…wait, I did. But why didn’t we admit that we agree on that point when the first thing I said on this thread was “Opinions are generally fine,” and the last thing I said about opinions on this thread was “Now, what I’m saying is that ideas or opinions should be expressed any time – I’m a big marketplace of ideas person.”

And didn’t @SavoirFaire state “I’ve never said that the absence of unquestioned and unquestionable facts was a prerequisite for having an opinion on something like the health care bill. One could be opposed to the bill regardless of the facts, for instance, on conceptual grounds” when you said that you disagreed with an assertion (not made by him) that one shouldn’t form an opinion without facts?

And when you said that you were referring to the one statement in the OP, didn’t s/he state “You started out that response by saying that you “totally disagree with premise that those with out the facts shouldn’t have an opinion.” I noted that I was not holding to that premise, but rather making a different point altogether.” – the point that, as I asked and s/he confirmed was along the lines of “Aren’t you stating that opinions, even those that have a fair dose of emotions, are not the issue? I read your comments to mean that if you are expressing your opinion as an assertion, or a conclusion, or a claim about something that it is irresponsible, and perhaps willfully ignorant, to not incorporate new evidence into the argument.”

To which you mystifyingly replied “I’d like to understand your position but the original question keeps getting in my way. And so far, I’m not sure where you stand on that. Nor (from the original question and your own response) do I know how much information (facts if you will) you need to have an opinion.”

After which, I tried “I don’t know why you keep latching onto this imaginary prohibition on having opinions until all information is gathered…It’s been repeatedly told you by many on this thread that you can have an opinion if you want.”

But then you quoted the OP again, to which I responded “the argument is still not and no one has said “don’t have an opinion.””

But you focused on an invisible argument, seemingly based on your assertion that the OP was dismissing conservative opinions, stating that we just want those who disagree with us to shut up, to which I said: “There’s no issue with voicing an opinion at any point, as long as the opinion is reasonable in scope, or isn’t an assertion about the truth.”

And finally, I started to get personal – desperation. You take that to mean: “You say I shouldn’t express my opinion unless I’m informed.” And I tried: “I can only keep repeating that the issue has nothing to do whether you should or should not have an opinion, or whether you should express it. Perhaps we need to change the terminology here and separate out opinions (as things that we think, discuss, and modify) and assertions (as things we’ve reached a conclusion on that we think is correct and will attempt to convince others of).”

And although I state: “Now, the examples I cited were not about whether I think your opinion on things is actually informed. I actually have no doubt about that – it’s why I continue to respond to you,” again, I know for a fact that your opinions are informed – I have no doubt and that’s why I continue to respond, you state in response “And just to be clear, personally I don’t respond until I feel I have the information (you may disagree).”

That’s about 9 times people tried to tell you that we were saying the same thing about opinions. That’s me telling you I have no doubt that you’re opinions being informed, and you answering “I inform my opinions – I don’t know if you believe that.”

So, what is it that we are dis agreeing on?

@Jaxk If the original question is getting in the way of you understanding my position, then just read my explicit statements about my position and ignore the question. No one needs anything simply to have an opinion. I’m talking about what responsible thinkers do, which is proportion their beliefs to the evidence to the extent that evidence is relevant to the belief. Responsible thinkers also seek out sources of information that might contradict their beliefs rather than ensconcing themselves in a virtual echo chamber.

So to be explicit yet again: we need no information to have an opinion. Even a responsible thinker can have an opinion without any information. But a responsible thinker qualifies his opinion based on how much information he has and is straightforward about what we does and does not know. Any honest attempt to do this results in less dogmatism and less extremism.

@rooeytoo

Nothing rude about it. In fact I think you were being generous. And I still agree with your assessment.

@SavoirFaire and @iamthemob

Here’s my final word on this. Michael Moore is a horses ass. I can tell by the marks where the jockey was beating him. I consider that a statement of fact. Maybe even a little too kind. If you disagree submit some evidence that he is something other than that, say you disagree, or let it go. Your choice. Likewise if questioned, I will support my statement, disagree with you, or walk away. My choice.

@Jaxk – I don’t think @SavoirFaire said anything about Michael Moore. I totally did. I though, think he’s more of the “jackass” variety.

I haven’t had any conversations myself about Michael Moore with anyone, but were I to do so I would direct them here and kind of leave it at that.

I don’t really know why you’re talking to us about Michael Moore though. Again, not about that.

@Jaxk As already noted, I have said absolutely nothing about Michael Moore. I have never seen one of his films or interviews, and I don’t really have an opinion on him one way or another. You are free to abandon this discussion if you’d like, but please do not pretend that you have at all addressed the points I have made by leaving it in this way. This was not a discussion about Michael Moore, whatever you’d like to pretend.

I thought it was clear apparently not.

“I consider that a statement of fact.”

That is the operative sentence, not Micheal Moore. My statement was put forth as a fact rather than an opinion. I thought that’s what you objected to. That we needed some sort of Marquess of Queensberry rules for debate. That you thought that if people expressed an opinion as opinion it would be OK but not state it as fact. I have disagreed. That’s why my example expressed it as fact. Not everyone is an eloquent speaker and I believe people should be able to express themselves however it works best for them.

Both of you have used examples and both have used Michael Moore in them. Why would he all of sudden be the issue?

@Jaxk First, it is not true that I have used Michael Moore in an example. Until my previous comment, in fact, the words “Michael Moore” had not appeared in any one of my responses. Thus the objection to you trying to make him the issue when I wasn’t discussing him at all. Second, I have not once endorsed having “some sort of Marquess of Queensberry rules for debate.” I have said that responsible thinkers qualify their statements relative to the amount of evidence they have for them and admit when all they have is opinion.

@Jaxk – Yup. What @SavoirFaire said. Personally, I think debate is a poor tactic to get at the best answer – debate reeks of agenda. I think I’ve mentioned that somewhere. It’s something I feel like I need to resort to rather than find productive. It’s a competition of positions rather than a coordination of interests, in my “opinion.”

@SavoirFaire – I feel like part of the problem is that the legal, and by extension government, or independently government, system is adversarial rather than collaberative. It’s why in terms of legal remedies I find myself more attracted to the ADR aspects of the system (arbitration, mediation, etc.) as opposed to litigation.

Also…do you know where the liberal blather is?

@iamthemob That’s a good point about adversarial systems. The same holds of dialogues like this one, of course. They can be debates (adversarial) or discussions (collaborative). I wish more people would see conversations like this as opportunities for understanding one another and furthering one’s own understanding rather than as occasions for verbal combat, but that rarely works out. Ah, well—such is life.

(As for the liberal blather, I think it’s hidden under the swimming pool.)

What about people who have strong opinions about Bush or Obama? What about Bush fans who never heard of what the Bush Doctrine is or what the Downing Memos are? Or Obama fans who don’t even know what major issues Obama has agreed with Bush on, contradicting his own many statements made as a Senator?

People who only watch TV or read Yahoo News, wouldn’t know these things. It takes a little care, and a little digging.

No matter what the subject matter is… shouldn’t there be a basic requirement to know certain basic relevant things?

I sometimes suspect people care more about loyalty to their family, party, religion, country, or otherwise group… than to the honest truth itself, when it comes to large issues, such as wars and presidents and other things in life. And that their arguments and beliefs stem from a desire to continue to try to find evidence to support a worldview, rather than being open to basic honest truth.

Another example, Look at all the Democrats who worshipped John Edwards and supported him based on talk and looks, and nothing else. Wasn’t that totally irresponsible and the epitome of how many Americans, both liberal and conservative, choose who they think is best?

Thanks for the convoluted, but intelligent discussion thus far.

@SavoirFaire

You’re right I assigned a statement to you that you didn’t make. My error. To err is human, to forgive divine. I’m looking for a little divinity here.

@Jaxk No problem. I hereby make the sign of the cross and forgive you.

@SavoirFaire – Nope. It was moved by the CIA. ;-)

@Jaxk – But still nothing on our exchange. Regardless, I’ll remain human. ;-)

@iamthemob

Consider this. You seem to advocate a gentle merging of ideas rather than a clash of ideas. However throughout the discussion, I’ve seen very little of ‘good point nut consider this’ type of statement. Instead you’ve reverted to the “Islamophobic’, Bigot’, Hypocrite’ type of arguments. It would seem you preferred style is actually the clash. The lady doth protest too much methinks.

Personally, I like the old fashioned debate like this one

@Jaxk

An honest assessment of the discussion would take into account the repeated times I attempted to communicate that your examples were not really responding to what I was saying, or what @SavoirFaire was saying. You kept summing it up as “But that still doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t have an opinion” and then to “But that still doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t voice their opinion.” I kept asking you to understand what we were saying on that front was exactly the same thing.

I absolutely advocate a discussion rather than a debate. But if I’m telling someone over and over again they’re arguing about something that’s been settled, and settled in a manner showing all parties agree, and that person insists on attributing one thing that was casually said to the people currently talking, I’m going to give up and just say, “Okay, if we’re gonna fight about it, let’s fight about it.” I threaded through the various attempts, and I understand that what’s ringing is the last comments as that’s when I gave up on trying to agree with you, but that was the end of an increasingly frustrating attempt to talk.

So when you say that my preferred style is the clash, it’s focusing on the end rather than the beginning, and doesn’t consider that this thread was not the only time we’ve been in exchanges.

Now, about the specific examples, I keep saying that you quoted the statement claiming there’s no such thing as a moderate Muslim.” I didn’t, and I said I didn’t, whether it was something that you believed. You defended the source, but I ask if it’s an assertion you believe.

If it is your assertion, I would ask what else you’ve seen to back it up – because it’s an absolute statement. I’d also ask what you mean by “moderate Muslim,” etc. Because it really seems like a “talking point” rather than an actual opinion held by you.

So, if we want to discuss that, and see why it’s relevant, I would be extremely interested to hear your answer. Is there such a thing as a moderate Muslim?

@Jaxk how timely…was it really 1979? Thanks for the belly laugh. That was priceless. no nuke buddies…lol.

@bkcunningham

One of my favorite SNL skits. Glad you enjoyed.

@iamthemob

You’ve already told us that you mind is closed on this issue. That it is a fact that there are moderate Muslims. You’ve also said that if I believe otherwise, I am a bigot. Not that it is your opinion that I’m a bigot but rather a fact. I think you said it was the dictionary definition of a bigot. So now you want a discussion about a subject where your mind is closed and your argument is based on personal attack. I’m afraid you’ll just have to speculate.

I have one rule in either discussion or debate. I try to stick to the issue. If however, I get personally attacked all bets are off. I’m not perfect with that rule but I try.

@Jaxk

I’ll totally admit that there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim. I believe that’s a fact, as I have Muslim friends that have fully integrated into Western society. That’s really all that needs to be put forward, as if there is one type of case where anecdotal evidence is reasonable to disprove an assertion, it is one where the assertion is an absolute one. And when an absolute statement is made about a group of people based on race, and the assertion/opinion/belief is a negative or implies a negative characteristic, then the person holding onto that is a bigot:

“A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion.” (Wikipedia).

But that’s why I asked for clarification. I don’t know if (1) that’s a shared assertion, (2) what you mean by “moderate Muslim”, (3) how expansive you actually believe the statement to mean practically, etc. I’m attempting to separate out what you believe from what the statement means.

Now, if you’re using this as an example of argument techniques, and the success that an accusatory stance has on someone holding a particular belief that is damaging – you’re making a very good point. I try never to start off a conversation in such a manner. And I would particularly not do it if I was trying to convince someone of the contrary. It only puts someone on the defensive.

And if your obstinance regarding focus on what the OP said is part of the argument that you can’t start the conversation by claiming that the other side is, in essence, stupid and shouldn’t talk, regardless of what you mean by it, I also agree and that’s also an excellent point. And we can color the above thread in such a manner to show brilliantly the almost certain a priori failure of trying to start a real discussion that way.

But at the same time, as you continue to refuse to respond to me, if used in a sort of meta-sense to provide an example of what goes on in such situations, you must expect that if I’m not “in on the joke” and confused as to why someone I consider to be informed generally seems to ignore that I’ve repeatedly stated that we agree on a point, that eventually out of frustration I will “give up” on you in some way. The resort to undermining you generally, your argument specifically, etc. is how I give up, as I have no more interest in your opinion, or what you say, or trying to convince you if I think you’re wrong as your position is clear.

We have the same rules. You demonstrated that you were clearly unwilling to listen to what I was saying, and referenced the argument only as the OP had it in the summary. I agreed and wanted to move on, but you, as admitted, couldn’t get past the OPs first statement. If this was a performance piece, I could have played along had I known. If you were trying to make a point to me about how you think discussions end up stunted when we start off by saying that the other person is wrong, you should have made sure that I disagreed first. If you still don’t understand that we agreed on your point, and I said that several times, then I’m still at a loss.

@iamthemob

My personal opinion of the issue is of little importance. I am not a Muslim nor Jew. In fact it would take a very loose definition to call me a Christian. I have read neither the bible nor the Koran. I am from the post quoted, the shopkeeper in Nebraska (metaphorically). As such my opinion has little relevance.

I can’t find (or don’t want to do the work) the original thread where that quote was posted. So I’m going on memory (always a dangerous thing for me). But as I recall there were numerous comments about terrorist vs moderates with a lot of absolute statements. My post was intended to be ‘Food for Thought’. I didn’t take a position one way or the other but rather provided some contradictory information that I felt was particularly relevant. A critical thinker would incorporate that information into their opinion. They may want to categorize it as misguided or maybe an example of why we have such disparity of views or any number of ways. You decided to attack the person that submitted the information. Apparently, your preferred method of discrediting that information.

The same has held true throughout this discussion. You continually state that we agree on this issue. We don’t. You have to analyze the whole point of the question. Forget the specific example even though that also provides considerable insight into the point.

Virtually all political controversy is based on opinion. Is health care good or bad, should taxes go up or down, did Bush lie or was he deceived. All questions of opinion. So stating that it is your opinion is rather redundant. Likewise expecting some qualification as to how much research you’ve done to form that opinion is unrealistic. And using that argument to discredit the person, is a cheap shot. It would be time better spent to discredit the issue rather than the person. I don’t have a problem whichever way you want to go. Personally I like to go after the issue but I don’t expect or demand that others follow my rules.

@Jaxk

Here’s where I think we all agree so correct me if you do not: one doesn’t need much in the way of information to form an opinion; one doesn’t need to have an informed opinion in order to express that opinion; expression of opinions, whether good or bad, is important for all in order to learn both what information is available and what information particular arguments are based on; that if one were to wait to have all the information on something to form an opinion, or more importantly to express one, no one would really be talking at all, and therefore one should feel comfortable expressing their opinion at any point.

Here’s where I think the disagreement lies: you say that requesting back up is unrealistic, as there’s information in most directions on any issue. I think it’s necessary – not in all circumstances, but in many. The stronger the opinion, the more it should be supported by information from the least biased sources (note – this is a spectrum. I am not arguing that a strong opinion will be supported by this before expressed, or that it should be, etc.). You have stated, I believe, that this is subjective as we tend to believe certain sources stronger that others find weak, and some find that one doesn’t have enough information when another would say they have more than enough. That is something that we also agree on. And if we waited around for the “answer” politics in particular would come to a complete standstill.

I think people should be held accountable for statements they make, and therefore should consider whether what they’re saying will be interpreted correctly. The problem in politics and media is that information that is more opinion than anything is being presented, in a rhetorical fashion, as fact. Facts are easier to accept than opinions, and if you trust the source or it’s a source that you generally find speaks to the issues the way you do, you’re more willing to accept the opinion as fact. That is why I think it’s irresponsible for leaders and media to continue to boil down complex issues to soundbites and memes. I feel like you’re arguing from the point of someone having a right to form and express an opinion…but what I want is people to, when they take a stance, approach critique of it openly.

@iamthemob

OK we’re closer.

“you say that requesting back up is unrealistic, as there’s information in most directions on any issue.”

No that’s not quite right. Expecting a qualifier up front, such as “but I haven’t done a lot of research” or “but that’s just an opinion”, is unrealistic. Question all you want. But expecting back up and making an assessment of the intelligence or ignorance of that person based on their response is doing exactly what your railing against. It is the personal nature where I have a problem. If you ask me a question on an issue, and I give you an exact quote from Rush Limbaugh (a talking point if you will), is it because I am parroting Rush? Or could it be that I think he stated what I believe, much better than I ever could. So question if you like but your assessment based on the answer is equally hasty and formed with little factual data.

When I present facts figures or opinions, I don’t expect anyone the change their mind. It has happened but it is rare. The best I hope for is to give them another perspective, a fresh look at what they know or think. Even on the rare occasion when someone alters their opinion, it doesn’t happen quickly. It takes time to internalize the new data accept or reject it. Some of the statements on this thread, infer that some people believe it just because Rush said it or because Obama said it. Whereas I won’t say that doesn’t happen, I think it’s rare. It’s more likely that Rush or Obama have verbalized what they already believed. Or and I shudder to think, they’ve convinced them to accept a new point of view. Just my opinion.

@Jaxk

We’re getting even closer still.

I feel like you’re assuming – although rightfully so, perhaps, considering the way the question was presented – that if they don’t have that there’s an assessment made about intelligence/ignorance generally. Personally, I think it’s inappropriate to make any assessment about a person’s intelligence based on how much information they have.

It’s also correct that any assumption regarding whether something that sounds point by point like a quote from Rush (or Moore, or [insert pundit here]) it’s not because a person’s opinion has been shaped by that person, or that it’s not reflective of conclusions that the person came to on their own. And if you’re not holding yourself to the same standard that you’re demanding of them, it’s a certain shade of hypocrisy that doesn’t look good on anyone. So we still agree.

And when I present information like facts, figures, etc. I try to approach it in the same way – I do characterize it as an attempt to change a person’s mind, but more in situations where they’ve come to a conclusion that I think is premature. Rarely is it in situations where there’s a political as opposed to a moral opinion – but it does happen frequently when it’s a mix of the two. I’ve often found that it results in an opinion being attributed to me that is not my own, which is natural, but I make it a goal to pepper in a fair amount of “I don’t know, it could be…” (always a work in progress).

The place where we still disagree is that there are a significant amount of points on this thread where someone has stated an opinion or even an assertion about a political point that could be attributable to one side or another of the aisle since it became mainly a back and forth between myself, @SavoirFaire and you. Personally, the overarching issue stated in the OP is a profound one – accepting information as presented and not going further, or being responsible and looking into it more. Whether it’s an opinion accepted by someone because it was stated by another, or whether the statement of another is something used by that person because it confirmed their already-achieved opinion, it’s equally troubling when the opinion is strong, broad, and based on more assumptions than it is information. In the first case, it’s parroting – in the second, it’s confirmation bias. Note that I’m only talking about statements or opinions that are expressed in the sense of the OP’s example, for instance. Stating that government run healthcare is a horrible idea, and not being able to express why, is more likely a result of parroting – if it was something that was a person’s independently gained opinion, they would be able to articulate reasons, good or not. The problem is if they say it’s a horrible idea, they should have something to back it up. That is a clear example of some rampant irresponsible thinking.

I shudder when you use the word “convince” – because I feel like people are often convinced because (1) a person has positioned themselves as part of the in-group somehow (i.e., someone who thinks like them, speaks for them, or is concerned for their plight in particular) and (2) uses fiery rhetoric, easy to digest or understand, that makes a complex issue sound simple. I think the rhetoric of the “debate” these days often boxes people into positions, and the problems are framed as one side or the other of an issue. Goals and interests, on the other hand, are not, except in that they are stated as a foregone conclusion as the inevitable result of a particular position on the issue. It’s why I don’t really trust any politician on an issue, or any pundit. I appreciate that they point out “Hey, there’s a debate on this” – so I can look into it. But it gets harder and harder to shut out the spin…

Close enough. When you’re up to your ass in alligators, it’s hard to remember that you came to drain the swamp.