Oh Moon it's fight or flight and conservatives flee from truth wherever they go.
Oh Moon it's fight or flight and conservatives flee from truth wherever they go.Everybody does. The problem seems to be that when you look at the so called evidence as proof, you see something different than most others here and they are just as sure they are right as you are. Objectivity might be something developed by educated training. Conservatives have been peer reviewed noted to be poorer at it than liberals because their brains appear to be designed to block fear from clouding their thinking. Do you have any suspicions that liberals are evil? That would be a fear tell distorting how you see things.
If i agreed with you, but I don't. Isn't Mueller the guy that committed perjury when he requested to lead the FBI and got turned down by President Trump and then Mueller lied under oath about it later?
Mueller Was Seeking FBI Director Job When He Met with Trump in 2017: Report | National Review
Administration officials spoke to Fox News about the former special counsel, who denied seeking the job at the time.www.nationalreview.com
At least to a measurably statistically significant difference than liberals which, unfortunately means both sides in some cases. But even there liberals will have an objective advantage.Oh Moon it's fight or flight and conservatives flee from truth wherever they go.
If they would just attend college and take an english class they would learn about performing a rhetorical analysis which forces one to shed their own personal biases in order to obtain the truth.At least to a measurably statistically significant difference than liberals which, unfortunately means both sides in some cases. But even there liberals will have an objective advantage.
A taste of all this can be had by familiarization with the work of Jonathan Haidt.
And yet you posted an article with zero proof in it.
I'm still waiting to see what make believe crime he's supposed to have committed and evidence of the crime.
Russian collusion? No
Obstruction of justice? No
Asking an ally to explore corruption? No
Being a Republican and winning an election? Guilty! Impeach him
If i agreed with you, but I don't. Isn't Mueller the guy that committed perjury when he requested to lead the FBI and got turned down by President Trump and then Mueller lied under oath about it later?
Mueller Was Seeking FBI Director Job When He Met with Trump in 2017: Report | National Review
Administration officials spoke to Fox News about the former special counsel, who denied seeking the job at the time.www.nationalreview.com
Quite frankly, I'm sick of taj posting false trash, but I can't express my feelings on the matter. If you want to have a debate, that's fine, but do it with facts. Bringing false information/sources to a debate is as insulting to somebody and as damaging to the conversation as throwing out personal attacks.
Yep I myself am in a state of confusion why lying and inventing reality is tolerated here.Quite frankly, I'm sick of taj posting false trash, but I can't express my feelings on the matter. If you want to have a debate, that's fine, but do it with facts. Bringing false information/sources to a debate is as insulting to somebody and as damaging to the conversation as throwing out personal attacks.
Even if it's false and gets shot down immediately, it ends up as a google search result somewhere.Yep I myself am in a state of confusion why lying and inventing reality is tolerated here.
Would be like Atticus Finch saying his client wasn't lynched but killed in a football stadium riot.
I appreciate that the mods generally make fun of silly posters like slow and Taj but it is truly time for the forum to say that this forum discussions are based on truth and facts and not false claims and innuendo. Otherwise the troll army wins by spreading all the lies and shit everywhere.
It is best removed right away from the start.
This is all truth that anybody but them can see. That is the problem.this right here. Posting abject lies as if they are truth should be infractable. It isn't "a matter of opinion" that you simply believe a thing, even it is untrue, but is otherwise valid for discussion "simply because you believe it." It is asinine and destroys reasonable conversation.
This is why there is a kid's table at Thanksgiving. Conservatives have long demanded they be allowed to sit at the adult table in these online forums, always refusing to leave behind their fantasies and bald lies, because they are "valid opinion." It is the end of discussion when you let them toss that shit on the table as if it is valid to address it.
Everybody does. The problem seems to be that when you look at the so called evidence as proof, you see something different than most others here and they are just as sure they are right as you are. Objectivity might be something developed by educated training. Conservatives have been peer reviewed noted to be poorer at it than liberals because their brains appear to be designed to block fear from clouding their thinking. Do you have any suspicions that liberals are evil? That would be a fear tell distorting how you see things.
I would say that differently. I would say: "Greater objectivity is only a consequence of educational training to the extent that a person has not had their innate or intrinsically love of learning smothered by traumatic events. I believe that you have hope precisely because while it can be buried, it can't ever be fully lost. We were born with a desire to know truth. The task is to preserve it where it still exists and recover it where suspended by fear.Greater objectivity is only a consequence of educational training to the extent that a person intrinsically values this result.
I would say that differently. I would say: "Greater objectivity is only a consequence of educational training to the extent that a person has not had their innate or intrinsically love of learning smothered by traumatic events. I believe that you have hope precisely because while it can be buried, it can't ever be fully lost. We were born with a desire to know truth. The task is to preserve it where it still exists and recover it where suspended by fear.
That's fine with me but the overriding happens at an unconscious level which takes the affected out of the column of deserving a punishment for guilt and over into the column of victim of conditioning. As long as we operate under some form of the same conditioning based on a conformity instilled by violence and threat, told you don't deserve love of support as a child because we are seen as acting willfully evil, that need to punish and blame some other guilty person that is apparent to you but not to them, will not go away. The answer always starts with the self within. Fix the beam in your own eye first and you will know how to help others properly. We always begin in a way that protects us from self-awareness as I see it.Perhaps a compromise:
Greater objectivity is only a consequence of educational training to the extent that a person's intrinsic value of personal objectivity is not overridden by competing fears.
You mean Justice Kavanaugh and President Trump? and you mean "left wing"It's the usual right wing demand that the target of scurrilous innuendo prove their innocence.
You mean Justice Kavanaugh and President Trump? and you mean "left wing"
That's fine with me but the overriding happens at an unconscious level which takes the affected out of the column of deserving a punishment for guilt and over into the column of victim of conditioning. As long as we operate under some form of the same conditioning based on a conformity instilled by violence and threat, told you don't deserve love of support as a child because we are seen as acting willfully evil, that need to punish and blame some other guilty person that is apparent to you but not to them, will not go away. The answer always starts with the self within. Fix the beam in your own eye first and you will know how to help others properly. We always begin in a way that protects us from self-awareness as I see it.
Not in the slightest. Your answer indicated you see something intrinsic. My intention as always is to shine a light on how we operate if some inner bias is triggered. Unfortunately, I tend to use 'you' when 'one' would be better and 'me' would be best.Why but? Did my answer in some way indicate I thought this to be operating consciously or others deserving of guilt over it?