If people avoid information that contridicts their beliefs....

[alcoholbob]

Is that kind of like how racial justice warriors on P&N ignores statistics about Asian Americans when talking about the kind of government regulations are needed to achieve their imaginary racial utopia?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Why are you including their weight and age and what relevance does that have to do with their voting?

Now you're accusing me of demonizing a poor fat girl. I merely described the encounter -- over the counter. Whether it was Lindsey Lohan or a girl who needed to see a dermatologist for a pimple epidemic, my point was about the stupidity of the remark and whatever logic it represented.

If I draw a caricature, it was still true to reality. And now -- I'm the bad guy -- because I berated a poor acne-infested half-wit who "sweats less than any fat girl I know."

How typical.

 

[Moonbeam]

The wall isn't organized by date or time but how much you agree with that person. The more you like someones comments any comments they make will be at the top of your wall.

At least so I've heard.

Perhaps I am the only person in the world that knows less than you. I don't even know what a wall is.

 

[BoberFett]

The intent was to portray her as being ignorant and slovenly. It helps to bolster the negative image of republicans he's trying to create with his story.

Yes, he's really going for the gold in his attempt to be the new Democrat Top Poster around here. It's an impressive first outing, he's already shown himself to be a conceited prick capable of craftily concealing bigotry and hatred into eloquent near-novels. I'd say he's well on his way toward claiming his prize.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Yes, he's really going for the gold in his attempt to be the new Democrat Top Poster around here. It's an impressive first outing, he's already shown himself to be a conceited prick capable of craftily concealing bigotry and hatred into eloquent near-novels. I'd say he's well on his way toward claiming his prize.

First, let me say that "-isms" and the vague summarization of them or use thereof in our dialogue are just belief systems of people who want the world to be a certain way. Excluding totalitarianism (naziism and communism), none of them have a monopoly on the truth.

But for these reasons I've noted, people cling to them out of intellectual laziness.

Maybe I'm conceited, maybe not. The truth is, I think I was conceited and a narcissist when I was making $500 annual contributions to the GOP and RNC. "Ah work harder than anyone else." And "Ah don' wan' my tax money going to the great unwashed." So, yeah -- I know something. I know something about myself, and I know something about you.

Y'all choose what facts you want to accept, and which you want to ignore. If you want to put the belief cart before the horse of reality, you'll do it whether I post here or not.

I have promises to keep, before I sleep -- the great grocery run before the day is done.

Go talk among yourselves, already . . .

 

[Subyman]

Perhaps I am the only person in the world that knows less than you. I don't even know what a wall is.

On Facebook there is a feed of posts that other people make. You can "like" those posts. Facebook keeps a record of what you "like" and will put more of those into your feed. Essentially Facebook walls you into only things that make you happy and curates things away from you that may be abrasive. Its the mental fetal position for adults.

 

[realibrad]

On Facebook there is a feed of posts that other people make. You can "like" those posts. Facebook keeps a record of what you "like" and will put more of those into your feed. Essentially Facebook walls you into only things that make you happy and curates things away from you that may be abrasive. Its the mental fetal position for adults.

I don't know if I would say it the way you did. Facebook is definitely trying to filter what you like and filter out what you do not. That being said, its not that they are only filtering out things abrasive. If you like 1 friend's posts and not any other, Face book will make sure to post those first onto your wall. If you do not show any activity about another person such as browsing their profile, or liking their posts, they will filter those out.

If you simply upvote things and never downvote, Facebook will still filter.

 

[Moonbeam]

On Facebook there is a feed of posts that other people make. You can "like" those posts. Facebook keeps a record of what you "like" and will put more of those into your feed. Essentially Facebook walls you into only things that make you happy and curates things away from you that may be abrasive. Its the mental fetal position for adults.

I must start a company that sells brain Novocain.

 

[realibrad]

I must start a company that sells brain Novocain.

Its a big market.

 

[Subyman]

Isn't that alcohol? It is a $200B market.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, he's really going for the gold in his attempt to be the new Democrat Top Poster around here. It's an impressive first outing, he's already shown himself to be a conceited prick capable of craftily concealing bigotry and hatred into eloquent near-novels. I'd say he's well on his way toward claiming his prize.

Isn't that interesting. I myself was just tickled pink to discover a poster with so much to say, so able to say it, and willing to put the effort into saying it despite the fact that what the information he is providing is that huge numbers of people are not able to think or reason or see the wisdom of which he speaks. And here you are, confronted with somebody willing to spit in the wind, and you blow hot air in his face. I bet he was as deeply shocked by your reaction as I was. Hehe.

 

[BoberFett]

Isn't that interesting. I myself was just tickled pink to discover a poster with so much to say, so able to say it, and willing to put the effort into saying it despite the fact that what the information he is providing is that huge numbers of people are not able to think or reason or see the wisdom of which he speaks. And here you are, confronted with somebody willing to spit in the wind, and you blow hot air in his face. I bet he was as deeply shocked by your reaction as I was. Hehe.

He's spitting in the wind? It doesn't require superhuman courage to post a diatribe against Republicans in this forum. Quite the opposite, I imagine it takes quite a bit more intestinal fortitude to brave the insults of the AT P&N left-wing hivemind and disagree with this forum's dogma.

 

[BoberFett]

On Facebook there is a feed of posts that other people make. You can "like" those posts. Facebook keeps a record of what you "like" and will put more of those into your feed. Essentially Facebook walls you into only things that make you happy and curates things away from you that may be abrasive. Its the mental fetal position for adults.

True. And what's funny is that just yesterday a friend of mine shared something from the Daily Kos feed, which then popped up on my Facebook feed. Naturally it would grossly incorrect and meant to mislead, but all of the Kosites were lapping it up and hurling invectives at Republicans, Koch brothers, Bush, or whoever else their lizard brain told them must be to blame. It seems the mental fetal position is very comfortable to people of all stripes.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

He's spitting in the wind? It doesn't require superhuman courage to post a diatribe against Republicans in this forum. Quite the opposite, I imagine it takes quite a bit more intestinal fortitude to brave the insults of the AT P&N left-wing hivemind and disagree with this forum's dogma.

Actually, it's above the political level, even though it's "political."

It's more about concentrated industries, majority stockholders who sit on the boards, their beliefs, and the venue in which they choose to promote them.

If you thought you had a couple billion or a trillion in your self-interest, principle doesn't matter if you can find discontents among the 98% who feed on principle. You might be willing to kill for those kinds of stakes, and people have probably done so.

Think of John Huston's role as Noah Cross in "Chinatown:"

"Mr. Gittis? In my life, I've learned that most people, at some time in their lives, are capable of almost anything."

An interesting fictional twist to the factual book "Cadillac Desert."

ADDENDUM:

To put all this on an even keel, suppose we talk about "character?"

Here's someone whom I didn't much appreciate as a little shaver or during the first part of my adulthood:

To paraphrase another script-line from a Steve McQueen western -- "Tom Horne" -- speaking about a comparison between John L. Sullivan and Geronimo: Eisenhower was so great, that Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Bushes would all have to stand on my shoulders just to kiss his a**. And Trump, Christy, Huckabee, Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina and the rest? Think about the sorry bunch of candidates today. They couldn't much manage to get their circus act together for such a feat.

500,000 dead soldiers on your mind for the remainder of your life. What a lot of weight there.

 

[sportage]

I ALWAYS play the game of WHAT IF?
No matter how liberal I am, and I am, I not only want but actually try to see the other side of the coin.
Take gays and SS marriage. My fav subject because it stirs up so much heat.

Religious conservatives, many if not most, absolutely refuse to be tolerant or are accepting of that SS marriage thing.
But they fail to realize the reality.
I've seen this state after state before courts shot down SS marriage bans, that all hell had been breaking out and front page news day after day.
However, once that ban was shot down and the marriages began, you heard absolutely NOTHING more about the SS marriage in that state.
Why?
Because marriage in itself is too private and personal.
If some guy isn't stealing away some ladies hubby and marring him, there really isn't anything to be upset about.
We don't know who these SS people are that are getting married.
Never have. Never will.
Not by name, residency, skin color, weight height nor shoe size.
Yet, up and until a ban is lifted, you'd think simply allowing two guys to get married was the end of the world. And it wasn't.

So, realistically speaking, allowing SS marriage boils down to nothing for those so violently opposed to the idea.
So, why all the rage?
It defies logic.
Maybe that is the whole point?

Some say that homosexuality is a mental disorder. I say creating monsters out of nothing and holding a totally illogical irrational viewpoint to the level of rage is the mental disorder.
Is hell bent religious conservatism a mental disorder?
Put me down for a big YES.
It damn well is exactly that.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I ALWAYS play the game of WHAT IF?
No matter how liberal I am, and I am, I not only want but actually try to see the other side of the coin.
Take gays and SS marriage. My fav subject because it stirs up so much heat.

Religious conservatives, many if not most, absolutely refuse to be tolerant or are accepting of that SS marriage thing.
But they fail to realize the reality.
I've seen this state after state before courts shot down SS marriage bans, that all hell had been breaking out and front page news day after day.
However, once that ban was shot down and the marriages began, you heard absolutely NOTHING more about the SS marriage in that state.
Why?
Because marriage in itself is too private and personal.
If some guy isn't stealing away some ladies hubby and marring him, there really isn't anything to be upset about.
We don't know who these SS people are that are getting married.
Never have. Never will.
Not by name, residency, skin color, weight height nor shoe size.
Yet, up and until a ban is lifted, you'd think simply allowing two guys to get married was the end of the world. And it wasn't.

So, realistically speaking, allowing SS marriage boils down to nothing for those so violently opposed to the idea.
So, why all the rage?
It defies logic.
Maybe that is the whole point?

Some say that homosexuality is a mental disorder. I say creating monsters out of nothing and holding a totally illogical irrational viewpoint to the level of rage is the mental disorder.
Is hell bent religious conservatism a mental disorder?
Put me down for a big YES.
It damn well is exactly that.

Those issues are important to certain groups. They don't see them as minor. I often refer to other issues as "trout-fly" issues -- to attract the "fish" and their little moral sensibilities. I was a fence-sitter about gay marriage and gun-control for a long time. Basically, those opposed want to forbid people from doing something because it just offends them. If they consider gays being "married," their prurient little minds turn to imagining what people do behind close doors -- fudge-packing -- carpet-licking. Dirty minds, pretending to be clean.

Take, the church-state issue. There has been this argument afoot that we're a "Christian Nation." How is it that the Founders read the Quran? They devised a state and a constitution -- toward what end? To get to Heaven? No. To find a moral overlap of several moral belief systems, so that those only commonly held would provide a framework for a social order that allowed people to go forward freely to just do what the wanted to do in that context.

Suddenly, I've found it startling that we've created a civilization that runs on fuel from 200-milliion-year-old rot from a fluke of Nature. Paragon of Creation! Temple of the Holy Ghost! Maybe we're just a more sophisticated version of one-celled life-forms in a closed system environment, slowly killing ourselves in our own poison, and killing each other just to gain possession of its cause, because we can't exercise enough collective action to see what idiots we've been since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

The Pres spoke to it today. But will there ever be anything done? Done in time to avoid raising ocean levels? Done in time before we're starved for energy, with people worried about how they'll heat their homes or get to work?

It should be made obsolete, except for pharmaceuticals and plastics. We'd constructed this comparative folly of going to the Moon, created NASA and industries surrounding it to great success. We should do something like that now with that [long-haired freak] Moniz administering it.

But it's not likely to happen too soon.

So let's all worry about ISIS -- also loosely connected to the big problem. Or let's all worry about gays "recruiting" kids, when they were 10% in Caesar's time and 10% now. Let's all worry about drowning the government in a bathtub.

I almost feel like an idiot, because what I'm saying here is so damn simple -- it's almost idiotic.

 

[Moonbeam]

I almost feel like an idiot, because what I'm saying here is so damn simple -- it's almost idiotic.

Idiot is a word we use for people who can't see the obvious, the truth staring them right in the face. We think of it as a mental defect typically ascribe to a lack of intelligence. The problem with that, of course, is that people who fit the definition of idiot do not want to feel the disparagement that typically attaches to the term and therefore deny to themselves the truth that obviously applies. The fear of being an idiot creates idiots who fear seeing themselves.

This is the dilemma of denial. It is a catch 22. The less able one is to objectively reason, the less able one is to see it. The more one points to the idiocy of another, the stronger that idiocy becomes.

What is the answer to this. That is what I would like to explore. The problem, of course, is that the mind must be willing to see. One must have a commitment to truth. How does that happen?

I see our world, the USA at least, as a very dark place when it comes to self awareness and structures that are designed to transmit wisdom. Everybody is cynical of everything.

 

[LunarRay]

Idiot is a word we use for people who can't see the obvious, the truth staring them right in the face. We think of it as a mental defect typically ascribe to a lack of intelligence. The problem with that, of course, is that people who fit the definition of idiot do not want to feel the disparagement that typically attaches to the term and therefore deny to themselves the truth that obviously applies. The fear of being an idiot creates idiots who fear seeing themselves.

This is the dilemma of denial. It is a catch 22. The less able one is to objectively reason, the less able one is to see it. The more one points to the idiocy of another, the stronger that idiocy becomes.

What is the answer to this. That is what I would like to explore. The problem, of course, is that the mind must be willing to see. One must have a commitment to truth. How does that happen?

I see our world, the USA at least, as a very dark place when it comes to self awareness and structures that are designed to transmit wisdom. Everybody is cynical of everything.

Wouldn't you agree that there are two kinds of reasoning? You've got the empirically derived reasoning and the intuitively derived reasoning, no?

It seems to me that some folks intuit a truth using what their mind has conjured to be information derived from the data that 'feels' right and ergo, it is truth just as real as the empirically oriented fellow accepts that he knows the earth is more than 6000 years old.

There is no doubt in my thinking that a person who truthfully say's that Jesus sat at the foot of their bed and discussed the End of Days experienced that event. It is real as real can be and the truth for them. I'd probably wonder if they were hallucinating. How can I falsify that event? I can't! No more so than Russell's teapot orbiting in the space between Earth and Mars.
These folks are not idiots. They are ummmmmm using a different means to an end and often an end consistent with some other belief or faith scenario.

The question becomes.... Who is right? And, what proof of that right is acceptable to both sides when there is a clear polar opposite situation.

I figure ya can't teach a pig to fly... It only frustrates you and ticks off the pig.

And, it is impossible to alter - in one generation - the thinking of the Intuitive Master.

 

[Moonbeam]

LunarRay: Wouldn't you agree that there are two kinds of reasoning? You've got the empirically derived reasoning and the intuitively derived reasoning, no?

M: Glad to see I finally remembered my password to my favorite alt account. How have I been? I am inclined to the opinion that in some funny way these two things are one and the same when used in alteration. I have seen theories that suggest that some folk are odd mentally, that on the Briggs Myers personality thingi, if I spelled it correctly, there are folk who are at the extremes of each of the 4 measurements, that they are not one or the other but both at the same time. OOPS, I got a notification win 10 is ready to upgrade and I will probably lose the work here in progress so I will just post had hope to be back later if all goes well.

It seems to me that some folks intuit a truth using what their mind has conjured to be information derived from the data that 'feels' right and ergo, it is truth just as real as the empirically oriented fellow accepts that he knows the earth is more than 6000 years old.

There is no doubt in my thinking that a person who truthfully say's that Jesus sat at the foot of their bed and discussed the End of Days experienced that event. It is real as real can be and the truth for them. I'd probably wonder if they were hallucinating. How can I falsify that event? I can't! No more so than Russell's teapot orbiting in the space between Earth and Mars.
These folks are not idiots. They are ummmmmm using a different means to an end and often an end consistent with some other belief or faith scenario.

The question becomes.... Who is right? And, what proof of that right is acceptable to both sides when there is a clear polar opposite situation.

I figure ya can't teach a pig to fly... It only frustrates you and ticks off the pig.

And, it is impossible to alter - in one generation - the thinking of the Intuitive Master.[/QUOTE]

 

[LunarRay]

LunarRay: Wouldn't you agree that there are two kinds of reasoning? You've got the empirically derived reasoning and the intuitively derived reasoning, no?

M: Glad to see I finally remembered my password to my favorite alt account. How have I been? I am inclined to the opinion that in some funny way these two things are one and the same when used in alteration. I have seen theories that suggest that some folk are odd mentally, that on the Briggs Myers personality thingi, if I spelled it correctly, there are folk who are at the extremes of each of the 4 measurements, that they are not one or the other but both at the same time. OOPS, I got a notification win 10 is ready to upgrade and I will probably lose the work here in progress so I will just post had hope to be back later if all goes well.

It seems to me that some folks intuit a truth using what their mind has conjured to be information derived from the data that 'feels' right and ergo, it is truth just as real as the empirically oriented fellow accepts that he knows the earth is more than 6000 years old.

There is no doubt in my thinking that a person who truthfully say's that Jesus sat at the foot of their bed and discussed the End of Days experienced that event. It is real as real can be and the truth for them. I'd probably wonder if they were hallucinating. How can I falsify that event? I can't! No more so than Russell's teapot orbiting in the space between Earth and Mars.
These folks are not idiots. They are ummmmmm using a different means to an end and often an end consistent with some other belief or faith scenario.

The question becomes.... Who is right? And, what proof of that right is acceptable to both sides when there is a clear polar opposite situation.

I figure ya can't teach a pig to fly... It only frustrates you and ticks off the pig.

And, it is impossible to alter - in one generation - the thinking of the Intuitive Master.

[/QUOTE]

The Right brain is a powerful toy. To be able to know without reasoning seems to me to be magic stuff. I can't imagine they be the same thingi as you do.

It is Myers-Briggs, btw. It is a sorter of sorts following Jung's bit.

Freud opined that you couldn't attain knowledge via the intuitive process. He of course was wrong... One of the greatest intuitive thinkers of our time was Einstein, I'd argue. Jung opined that intuition was the "perception via the unconscious". He further said that 'sense perception' (empirical stuff) was only the starting point. Like when someone I know says, 'Hmmmmm'.

Anyhow, when you get back from Ravel's 'Bolero' (10) perhaps you could dump some data into my ever expanding basket of stuff. :awe:

 

[OverVolt]

He's spitting in the wind? It doesn't require superhuman courage to post a diatribe against Republicans in this forum. Quite the opposite, I imagine it takes quite a bit more intestinal fortitude to brave the insults of the AT P&N left-wing hivemind and disagree with this forum's dogma.

Correct :0)

Also this thread took a turn for the crazy.

This place makes cnn money look right wing.

Example: http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/new...women-outearn-men/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

Example: http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/news/economy/obamacare-facts/index.html

OR NYT

Example: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/o...ed&version=Full&src=mv&WT.nav=MostViewed&_r=0

Actually just about everywhere disagrees with this forum lol.

 

[cubby1223]

of what use would that information be? According to research that I have read, people often avoid information and situations that have the potential to contradict previously held beliefs and attitudes (i.e., situations that arouse cognitive dissonance). For example, according to the motivated social cognition model of political ideology, conservatives tend to have stronger epistemic needs to attain certainty and closure than liberals. This implies that there may be differences in how liberals and conservatives respond to dissonance-arousing situations. My question is that if such a theory were factual, would that imply that conservatives in such situations where their belief are challenged be exhibiting a brain defect. In short, if yes, then the assumption must be that the capacity to see the truth regardless of personal issues would have to be the preferred condition, that the normal state of morality is that objectivity is the best state to be in.

You and your brain defect logic again.

Honestly, as I've gotten older and understood more and more people, the conclusion I'm drawn to is people are just flat out too busy to devote the necessary time to taking in the required amount of opposing views. People have jobs that must be worked, succeed at, paychecks that must be earned, food that needs to be put on tables, families that need support, children who need raising, the list goes on.

Not everyone has the time to dodge Moonbeam insults It's far easier to do accomplish what we need to in life and enjoying what else we can, and simply not value people who are negative towards others.

Very few have the luxury of staying single and childless their whole lives so they can ponder random thoughts every time they are bored.

 

[cubby1223]

Religious conservatives, many if not most, absolutely refuse to be tolerant or are accepting of that SS marriage thing.

By saying "many if not most" you are showing that you really don't understand the people you are analyzing. In my family I have a few cousins who are gay, and I also have many aunts, uncles, cousins who are very much involved in their church functions, some are members of their church's board, one is even a pastor.

My personal experience with religion is at least 3/4 are tolerant of people who are homosexual (talking about today, not 20 years ago, not 40 years ago, today), they simply aren't the ones who voice their opinions loudly. They are the soft-spoken ones who primarily just want to go about their own lives in peace. You're going to have to provide a lot more detail into how you developed your conclusion "many if not most absolutely refuse". My guess it's a gut feeling you have and assumed it was correct?

No matter how liberal I am, and I am, I not only want but actually try to see the other side of the coin.

Luckily for you performing a good job of understanding others isn't a requirement for liberalism

Is hell bent religious conservatism a mental disorder?
Put me down for a big YES.
It damn well is exactly that.

I also categorize those who vehemently believe they are smart and well-informed when they actually are not, also as a mental disorder hehe

 

[Moonbeam]

You and your brain defect logic again.

Honestly, as I've gotten older and understood more and more people, the conclusion I'm drawn to is people are just flat out too busy to devote the necessary time to taking in the required amount of opposing views. People have jobs that must be worked, succeed at, paychecks that must be earned, food that needs to be put on tables, families that need support, children who need raising, the list goes on.

Not everyone has the time to dodge Moonbeam insults It's far easier to do accomplish what we need to in life and enjoying what else we can, and simply not value people who are negative towards others.

Very few have the luxury of staying single and childless their whole lives so they can ponder random thoughts every time they are bored.

This is a story you tell yourself but it is defective. You have a negative attitude toward folk you imagine have a negative attitude toward others, toward people who don't have wives or families, people who make time to think, folk not obsessed with a pay check, etc. You see such people as defective because you are defective. You want to excuse yourself at the same time.

 

[TeeJay1952]

Are we debating philosophies or personalities?