"Around here, the only thing we have is our credibility."

[bronzeage]

agreed, its easy to define the margins.

From my (biased) point of view it seems an awful lot of the ones spoiling for an altercation with me (so I presume, perhaps incorrectly, that they lean left) seem to content themselves with "Nuh, uh!" and "You are wrong", and pretty paltry attacks on my mental acumen.

I don't make a point of slapping down Jen because as you say you can PICTURE her as your daft neighbor, but doesn't it seem likely that she on the right and those on the left of similar debate skills FEEL supported when a position supports theirs? Awful lot of people walking around casting aspersions about others intellect (left and right) when they don't seem to have a mental pot to piss in.

The thing is with 'my dingbat' (and again maybe bias clouds my viewpoint) even when I abhor the poor phrasing, the ad homonym, the veiled racism, I can still see what point she is articulating, and it is often the correct position with faulty structure supporting it.

with 'your' dingbats, there is so little there that you wouldn't know from any one of the white house press non-briefings.

I guess though thats how Jen's poor articulations appear to you with you attributing it (probably correctly) to say, Hannity?

You had me going there for a moment until you said you could see the point she articulates. There's no point and no articulation. She's a parrot who repeats phrases without understanding what they mean and is unable to respond to the simplest questions.

Jenn's unending capacity to look like a fool has made her a popular pin cushion for some people. There's really no sport in that.

 

[Sean Renaud]

There is in my mind a HUGE difference between finding some mumbling bag lady on the street-corner surprisingly on the defensible side of an issue, and finding that person to be credible. A stopped watch is 100% correct twice a day...more often if you travel west fast enough.

Assuming you live in the stone age with an analog watch. In the real world however we've moved on to more accurate time pieces and if you aren't being updated by the atomic clock at least once a day you are never accurate and that's where Jen is.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Kind of hard to see blue as a color under water isn't it?

That's why corpse divers shuffle their feet.

 

[Que]

My markers for lack of credibility is pretty simple.

Can the person in plain language that seems consistent with their rate of speech and vocabulary choices articulate their position in a manner that someone who has never heard the argument before can understand, if not necessarily agree.

If someone can do that, my reaction is mixed. If I see some wiggle room a flap in their intellectual tent that looks untested by them I'll point it out and I am usually (in those cases) fairly polite. Because THERE I can see that they have a reasoned , sincerely held belief.

When I hear talking points and headlines, I am pretty dismissive because it seems apparent they haven't taken time to give it any independent thought.

That said its amuses me when someone accuses me of spouting talking points...whose? I wonder.

mumbling to myself: I live in the middle of nowhere...No tv signals of any sort. Obviously cable, and satellite is an option but DAYS went by without turning on the TV so I decided it wasn't worth my time or effort. Talk radio you say? I used to have access to Sirius at work, But not for months, four FM stations, no AM. Country (had to learn to appreciate that) 100-200 set list "classic rock" usually unbearable elevator rock, and the soundtrack that is my teenagers and to be honest my social life or what passes for it.

What about websites? I like drudge to catch-up...he probably leans right but his links are all over the map as far as first sources. If I want to sing with the choir, maybe town-hall. Daily Caller I thought interesting but its a lot of right leaning snark, and sparse actual content...basically really short opinion pieces.

Money? Where else The Journal. Bloomberg thinks he can cleverly influence opinion with his media empire..I don't need non-relevant politics in my money.

Then their are the "you are wrong" (of all persuasions) no support for why they differ, just "everyone knows" "common knowledge" "google it" or the only thing they offer is a cut and paste that usually only tangentially bolsters an alternate view. I feel really stupid when I bother to rise to that sort of lazy effort.

HAVE and opinion. DEFEND your opinion. READ something from the 'wrong' side everyday.

 

[coastal-boy]

I provide the rope. Is it my fault those that want to respond hang themselves? I don't think credibility has anything to do with it. Any coin has two sides. Both sides can be supported. The problem with people here is that far too many only have one side.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

I provide the rope. Is it my fault those that want to respond hang themselves? I don't think credibility has anything to do with it. Any coin has two sides. Both sides can be supported. The problem with people here is that far too many only have one side.

Then it's a good thing we aren't coins.

 

[Que]

You had me going there for a moment until you said you could see the point she articulates. There's no point and no articulation. She's a parrot who repeats phrases without understanding what they mean and is unable to respond to the simplest questions.

Jenn's unending capacity to look like a fool has made her a popular pin cushion for some people. There's really no sport in that.

I can't think of an example because I never get past the headline. But a lesser jen today articulated a viewpoint that Obama's lack of business experience made it impossible to for-see any possibility that Obamacare could be administrated.

Nonsense of course but the kernel of truth in there is that he DOESN'T have any business and more to the point decision making/delegating what is termed generally executive experience.

It IS impacting the hoped for by many implementation because he wouldn't know WHO to delegate that sort of thing to. He seems to mistrust anyone from the business world..(I suspect pride at work there he shouldn't be embarrassed about not knowing their language and practices, it wouldn't be hard to come up to speed, he has had 5 years to study how business and economics works...) or its hubris...he really thinks he knows more about business and economics than people (unlike him) that have studied and practiced in these fields...

I have often said facetiously that Obama has never so much as run a lemonade stand. Though true, its kind of beside the point he COULD should he have ambition to do so be a hell of a lemonade salesman. He's glib, personable...so why not. He isn;t as people say "the smartest man in the room" but he is bright enough to perhaps with a different set of mentors, a different course of study be as bright as many so called captains of industry.

Point being I can see what that poster meant, but admittedly it wasn't much substance there. So perhaps I need to consider that idiots of all persuasions are equally ill-informed.

 

[Que]

I provide the rope. Is it my fault those that want to respond hang themselves? I don't think credibility has anything to do with it. Any coin has two sides. Both sides can be supported. The problem with people here is that far too many only have one side.

See I would get off on the wrong foot with your line of reasoning from the inception. There aren't "two sides" to everything. That's a popular consensus building viewpoint that so called modern education pushes, but there are times (not always) where there is only one objective reality.

Pretending that what one side wishes to do will be effective doesn't make it so, if the numbers say it cannot.

Republicans seem to be saying that discretionary cuts alone without touching entitlements or increasing taxes will make a relevant difference. Does that mean we should do it their way "too"? All the while EXPANDING government to "stimulate" to keep the dems happy? they are both sort of right?

 

[girlsmiley]

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[patient1]

I'm not sure it's strictly limited to credibility.

When that fails, one can resort to -

alts,

bullying

ignore list

tenacity


There are even some posters here who respond to reason.


As a more serious response to your other observation- Don't think of Lit as a porn board or a political board, so much as a place to get things off of one's chest literally and figuratively, or hang out and let it all hang out sometimes. The origins were with porn writers and free discourse, but that appeals not only to perverts, but trolls and people banned elsewhere, political and other fringe folks of all kinds. It's evolved from there.

 

[Sean Renaud]

See I would get off on the wrong foot with your line of reasoning from the inception. There aren't "two sides" to everything. That's a popular consensus building viewpoint that so called modern education pushes, but there are times (not always) where there is only one objective reality.

Pretending that what one side wishes to do will be effective doesn't make it so, if the numbers say it cannot.

Republicans seem to be saying that discretionary cuts alone without touching entitlements or increasing taxes will make a relevant difference. Does that mean we should do it their way "too"? All the while EXPANDING government to "stimulate" to keep the dems happy? they are both sort of right?

It's funny, you make a quality point about how not all (I would argue not even most) things have two sides, then you turn around and use an example of something where (at least in the present) we can easily do both. We choose to have low taxes, but that is a choice. We could do both the things you describe and with fairly moderate tax increases.

 

[coastal-boy]

See I would get off on the wrong foot with your line of reasoning from the inception. There aren't "two sides" to everything. That's a popular consensus building viewpoint that so called modern education pushes, but there are times (not always) where there is only one objective reality.

Pretending that what one side wishes to do will be effective doesn't make it so, if the numbers say it cannot.

Republicans seem to be saying that discretionary cuts alone without touching entitlements or increasing taxes will make a relevant difference. Does that mean we should do it their way "too"? All the while EXPANDING government to "stimulate" to keep the dems happy? they are both sort of right?

An unexpected event occurs in a room with 20 people. You immediately separate the 20 people after the event without letting them talk to one another and ask them to describe the event. Do you get 1 common response? No. You may get 20 similar responses, but it is also possible to get 20 very different responses. This is known as perspective.

Now comes the tricky part...is any one individual's perspective less "real" to them than another person's perspective is to them? What one views as "reality" is biased by their perspective. Sorry, you are incorrect...there are always multiple sides to everything.

 

[Que]

An unexpected event occurs in a room with 20 people. You immediately separate the 20 people after the event without letting them talk to one another and ask them to describe the event. Do you get 1 common response? No. You may get 20 similar responses, but it is also possible to get 20 very different responses. This is known as perspective.

Now comes the tricky part...is any one individual's perspective less "real" to them than another person's perspective is to them? What one views as "reality" is biased by their perspective. Sorry, you are incorrect...there are always multiple sides to everything.

That is correctly stated how it is taught to 'respect' alternative reality. Your example is apt. There is, however only one correct accounting of what occurred. Something occurred...it really happened.

In your example might you NEVER determine what actually happened? Sure.

But SOMETHING happened. Only one thing in one sequence and it only has one effect. Not 20 different things...perceptions are NOT reality.

Oh and ALL 20 are objectively speaking wrong if in fact NONE of them are able to accurately report what occurred.

That is a MUCH better illustration of what occurs here. More likely that NEITHER side of your coin has gravitas, they both are ignoring the rim. All coins have three sides.

They aren't all "partially right" if all disagree on substance. 19 or 20 of them are "wrong". Is it possible that one portion of the sequence person 3 reported with a different portion from #8 also being right? sure...but there are not two sides...there is accuracy or not.

Just because a person believes his perception is "real" doesn't make it so. Only one objective thing occurred in that room. What belief a person takes away from that room about what occurred isn't validated by them fervently believing in something that did not occur in the way they inaccurately perceived it.

There is no such thing as an alternative reality except on star trek.

Read Dewey...you will find yourself nodding in agreement. (based on your perceptions of reality as filtered by the way in which critical thinking was presented to and put into practice by you)

I will read Dewey and shake my head throughout...No, that is NOT true. A consensus of opinion does NOT lead to ultimate truth...

No, consensus that is wrong but harmonizing is NOT preferable to discordant truth.

Dewey doesn't think right and wrong are even relevant.

And he founded the Chicago school of thought on "modern" education ...the Dewey-ites have won the day by the way.

 

[coastal-boy]

What does this have to do with credibility?

 

[Que]

What does this have to do with credibility?

Dunno, your thread-jack...I was being an accommodating host. grin

As I understand it you stated the problem is not credibility or the lack thereof, rather the inability for us all to get along and agree we are all right...or something.

 

[Phelia]

You kinda talk a lot. You have to earn a little more credibility before I'm ready to commit to reading that many words.

 

[Que]

It's funny, you make a quality point about how not all (I would argue not even most) things have two sides, then you turn around and use an example of something where (at least in the present) we can easily do both. We choose to have low taxes, but that is a choice. We could do both the things you describe and with fairly moderate tax increases.

we havent chosen "low taxes" although the BRACKETS are at a fairly all time low. Used to be a LOT of write-offs that arent there that made the nominal rate less even than now...even in the 80's there were any number of "tax havens" you could shelter all of your income in. and people did. No one ever paid the 90% bracket, becuase...oops i guess i didnt make that amount this year.

you absolutely cannot rationally both raise taxes and increase spending that will only hasten the inevitable, and if we DO just want to go there why hasten it?

...unless you mean cut spending (I mean spend less this year then last not increase the rate of increase by a lesser amount) AND (modestly) increase revenue. I would find ways to get better compliance of ACTUAL revenue of 20% from more people, but just raising nominal rates is a fools errand...people just wont pay.

I was rambling a bit (as I am won't to do....wasn't looking to make a point as to what policy should be....If I made a point it is that both are retarded...only ss and medicare and medicaid matter. Next is of course defense, but even if we eliminated defense and all discretionary spending and raised taxes (and miraculously collected) as high as you like, short of the plague decimating our population, we get our grandkids lunch money taken by even modest inflation and population growth.

Soilant green?

 

[Que]

You kinda talk a lot. You have to earn a little more credibility before I'm ready to commit to reading that many words.

You might be surprised but I get a similar reaction in face-to-face discussions...grin

That's sort of a personal choice...there is instagram and facebook....lots of great points to be made with 'pitchers.

 

[coastal-boy]

I provide the rope. Is it my fault those that want to respond hang themselves? I don't think credibility has anything to do with it. Any coin has two sides. Both sides can be supported. The problem with people here is that far too many only have one side.

See I would get off on the wrong foot with your line of reasoning from the inception. There aren't "two sides" to everything. That's a popular consensus building viewpoint that so called modern education pushes, but there are times (not always) where there is only one objective reality.

Pretending that what one side wishes to do will be effective doesn't make it so, if the numbers say it cannot.

Republicans seem to be saying that discretionary cuts alone without touching entitlements or increasing taxes will make a relevant difference. Does that mean we should do it their way "too"? All the while EXPANDING government to "stimulate" to keep the dems happy? they are both sort of right?

Dunno, your thread-jack...I was being an accommodating host. grin

As I understand it you stated the problem is not credibility or the lack thereof, rather the inability for us all to get along and agree we are all right...or something.

I only provide the rope. Think of me as the messenger.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

http://www.printedclothing.com/clicpic/ebay/lg_PC386_F_OFF_Hangman.jpg

 

[Que]

I only provide the rope. Think of me as the messenger.

Well, the message is a little garbled so high on off back to Western Union and see if they can send you out with a fresh copy.

 

[Que]

http://www.printedclothing.com/clicpic/ebay/lg_PC386_F_OFF_Hangman.jpg

In the words of Will Smith...

I am "hangin' myself with a celibate rope."

Should have taken off in my little car to civilization as semi-planned today.

 

[coastal-boy]

http://www.printedclothing.com/clicpic/ebay/lg_PC386_F_OFF_Hangman.jpg

Sometimes, I don't even need to provide rope...they already have it.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Soilant green?

Guy, really? You're gonna use that as a metaphor to make a point, but fuck it up?

Moody's just called...they're about to downgrade your eruditeness to a double B rating!

 

[Que]

Guy, really? You're gonna use that as a metaphor to make a point, but fuck it up?

Moody's just called...they're about to downgrade your eruditeness to a double B rating!

My deficiency in eruditeness is likely negatively impacting my credibility. I'll work on that.

Thanks for playing.