The bliss of ignorance

[danot]

The analogy wasn't that ill fitting. The question is either true or false. If you believe the sky is green and a billion people think it's Blue then it's down to the individual as opposed to the billion to state their case. Einstein, Darwin had that gift, and those gifts were born on the shoulders of others with gifts. Excusing yourself with "there you go again Mr Link man" is hardly a good argumentative tool. Even the limited thinker must base his/hers limited thoughts through some form of analytical process. My guess is most that use links do so in order first to question or verify their thoughts rather than basing it on instinct through prejudice.

 

So..as opposed to the billion that thinks it's Blue you as the Green thinker must make a pretty heady case because the other Billion just won't listen.

Now we're talking about logical deduction. I wasn't aware BF was referring to logical deduction.

 

BF was referring to posters who remain reluctant to see reason, or the errors in their argument even when presented with evidence that proves the opposite to their argument be true.

 

That's why I asked,(being a green thinker) "what evidence"?.

 

I could be mistaken, and I have been on very rare occasions, the "evidence" which BF was referring to would only corroborate any given argument, it wouldn't serve as proof that the argument was true.

[esme]

Mod Note

 

Posts have been removed for discussing moderation, any issues with moderation should be passed on to the Helpdesk

[Harleyman]

Following on from another recent thread highlighting our gullible nature and eagerness to believe conspiracy theories on the internet, I thought at least it shows someone has taken the time to read the media out there.

 

Conversely there exists an ignorance that is formed through a lack of exploration, the kind of mindset that keeps people emotionally poor.. a blissful state of certainty based on indolence.

 

Many times here points are argued constructively, and then someone will pitch in with statements like 'why do you post so many links' or 'I can't be bothered to read them' the most cutting retort of the cerebrally challenged is to announce that they've placed you on ignore, as if the irritant that gives them a rash will be cured if they stop looking at it.

 

There are many contentious issues that are discussed here-immigration, politics, Islam, crime etc, but before they descend into bitchiness, lies are invariably presented as fact, and when evidence to the contrary is presented it is assiduously ignored.

 

Someone said the other day that it's impossible to change peoples minds, but surely that isn't a virtue? Shouldn't we be open minded enough to accept a conflicting argument or at least consider the reasoning behind it?

 

None of this is rocket science or original thinking on my part, but what I'd like to know is are people able (happy) to change long held views when confronted with the evidence that contradicts them, or are they content in their beliefs on the basis that they never have to open a book or seek experiences that will challenge their thinking?

 

Right, back to finish my tepid lamb sag

 

 

Speaking for myself BF I dont form my opinion on sites pulled from U-tube or google as others seem to when answering every post.

 

Some of us believe it or not are capable of forming our own opinions rather than drawing inspiration from the MIghty Google God

[boyfriday]

Speaking for myself BF I dont form my opinion on sites pulled from U-tube or google as others seem to when answering every post.

 

Some of us believe it or not are capable of forming our own opinions rather than drawing inspiration from the MIghty Google God

 

LOL, that's fine Harley, I wasn't really advocating worship at the shrine of Google God! But at least it provides a basis for discussion and counter argument.

 

You say you're capable of forming your own opinions, that's really the point of thread..how are those opinions formed during a discussion here?

[Harleyman]

The analogy wasn't that ill fitting. The question is either true or false. If you believe the sky is green and a billion people think it's Blue then it's down to the individual as opposed to the billion to state their case. Einstein, Darwin had that gift, and those gifts were born on the shoulders of others with gifts. Excusing yourself with "there you go again Mr Link man" is hardly a good argumentative tool. Even the limited thinker must base his/hers limited thoughts through some form of analytical process. My guess is most that use links do so in order first to question or verify their thoughts rather than basing it on instinct through prejudice.

 

So..as opposed to the billion that thinks it's Blue you as the Green thinker must make a pretty heady case because the other Billion just won't listen.

 

If the Demi God Google says it's true then it must be true. Same as those who listen to any media news commentator, far left or far right say it's just gotta be true.

 

No truer believers in Labour than the good voters of Sheffield. There is no other government that can run the country except Labour.

 

That's what's called total brainwashing

[boyfriday]

I could be mistaken, and I have been on very rare occasions, the "evidence" which BF was referring to would only corroborate any given argument, it wouldn't serve as proof that the argument was true.

 

That's true, but in establishing a position the poster should be able to substantiate their claims or at least offer the evidence that it's based on, if they're not prepared to do that or accept contrary evidence, then their argument is invalid..in my opinion.

[Harleyman]

LOL, that's fine Harley, I wasn't really advocating worship at the shrine of Google God! But at least it provides a basis for discussion and counter argument.

 

You say you're capable of forming your own opinions, that's really the point of thread..how are those opinions formed during a discussion here?

 

 

I still read newspapers and listen to news from the left and right media outlets.

 

Something resembling the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle I reckon.

 

Remember those who create websites on the Great God Google only air their opinions according to their own particular biases

 

Best bet for fair and impartial news for my money is found in the Economist.

[danot]

That's true, but in establishing a position the poster should be able to substantiate their claims or at least offer the evidence that it's based on, if they're not prepared to do that or accept contrary evidence, then their argument is invalid..in my opinion.

Evidence isn't always factually accurate though. Whereas someone who actually witnessed an incident or overheard an individual say something would be in possession of the facts.. although the actual facts which support their argument would be deemed invalid by your line of reasoning as their argument wouldn't tally with your source of information which you have presented as evidence, therefore your argument as to be true.

[boyfriday]

I still read newspapers and listen to news from the left and right media outlets.

 

Something resembling the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle I reckon.

 

You may well be right, and links from all those sources can be reproduced here to bolster an argument, I guess what troubles me are posters who present an argument as fact without a desire to enlighten the debate with their reasons why.

Remember those who create websites on the Great God Google only air their opinions according to their own particular biases

Absolutely, I don't lend much credibility to blog sources or minor interest groups found in Google searches, but conventional news sources and research information is also linked there, not just the nutjobs,

[Mecky]

Following on from another recent thread highlighting our gullible nature and eagerness to believe conspiracy theories on the internet, I thought at least it shows someone has taken the time to read the media out there.

 

Conversely there exists an ignorance that is formed through a lack of exploration, the kind of mindset that keeps people emotionally poor.. a blissful state of certainty based on indolence.

 

Many times here points are argued constructively, and then someone will pitch in with statements like 'why do you post so many links' or 'I can't be bothered to read them' the most cutting retort of the cerebrally challenged is to announce that they've placed you on ignore, as if the irritant that gives them a rash will be cured if they stop looking at it.

 

There are many contentious issues that are discussed here-immigration, politics, Islam, crime etc, but before they descend into bitchiness, lies are invariably presented as fact, and when evidence to the contrary is presented it is assiduously ignored.

 

Someone said the other day that it's impossible to change peoples minds, but surely that isn't a virtue? Shouldn't we be open minded enough to accept a conflicting argument or at least consider the reasoning behind it?

 

None of this is rocket science or original thinking on my part, but what I'd like to know is are people able (happy) to change long held views when confronted with the evidence that contradicts them, or are they content in their beliefs on the basis that they never have to open a book or seek experiences that will challenge their thinking?

 

Right, back to finish my tepid lamb sag

 

You won't change peoples' opinions and you won't win an argument so why bother?