okay, see, ruffdraft, i'm going to talk to you on point, and one point only:
do you use the scientific method when you talk about ideology?
Sure. Do you? Always? If not, then why not? How do you measure that your ideology is right? How do you run an experiment on it? How do you form your conclusions? Would you like to discuss it with me? Seems more often than not you discuss things at
me; you tell
me what's right and why I'm wrong to disagree. It gets irritating.
you complained earlier in the thread about Valhallen having a "bad interpretation". So there was clearly multiple ways to view whatever the fuck it is you two were talking about, I skimmed most of the posts because [REALLY DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT YOUR TOILET HABITS THANKS].
I presented an article that spoke about what it is to be Conservative; it talked, among other things, about the idea of compromise, and why Conservatives might not compromise on a particular issue. He read the article and interpreted the message of the article to be "Conservatives outright reject the idea of compromise." This was contrary to what was written, and I explained why.
I am not trying to patronize you, btw, because I want everyone to get a grasp on this, because well, every time you say something REALLY FUCKING STUPID (in my humble opinion) it gets me extremely unhappy and unhealthy. I don't blame YOU at all. (weirdly enough, right?)So you don't have to feel guilty.Guilty?
Why would I feel guilty? I'm kind of feeling offended, actually. As if your irritable bowel is my doing. Did I give you Crohn's? Am I actively sucking the life out of you? Or did I engage you in conversation?
I'm not going to apologize for disagreeing with something you have to say. If we have a discussion, more often than not you reject the notion that my argument could have any merit at all---and without following the scientific method. And then you blow up at me. Personally I find it easier to I blame your illness than than to get angry at you in those cases. It causes you pain, pain causes emotional instability, and you become irrational. And yet your pain is something I caused, but shouldn't feel guilty about? I'm legitimately outraged by that.
You and Valhallen's debates consist of citation VS citation. Noticeably more from Valhallen than yourself. You are relying more, on average, on what you might call common sense.
"Come on, everyone knows this."
So, for example, when I present evidence on something I have observed in the past (say, "grass is green,") and he asks for a citation ("prove that this is true"), and I provide ONLY observational facts behind it ("look at some grass, it is green"), that's me making a common sense argument, yes? Are you saying that's a bad thing? Always? If so, prove to me by the example I have just presented above that it is incorrect to use that method.
I think that you don't have a background in formal logic that is stronger than Valhallen's, and whenever I read a full exchange between you, you--on average--are more interested in the circumstances rather than the statistics.
Stats are more important than circumstance: stats are a large amount of circumstance by which we determine the Lowest Common Denominator.
But then doesn't that mean that stats and circumstances are equally important? Can't have stats without circumstances. Furthermore, what about the conclusions one draws from the statistics?
For example: Let's say 100 kids below the age of 5 choke to death on solid objects in a given time period; and let's say that the statistics are as follows: 10% on miscellaneous objects, 15% on rubber balls or marbles, 25% on food, and 50% on toys. If the data indicates that kids are choking on toys more frequently than anything else, then is it right to conclude that toys should be regulated to improve their safety, as is often one's way of thinking? Perhaps a good idea, but doesn't that simply shift blame? Most of these children would probably not choke to death if they were being properly supervised by their parents. The most common sense conclusion is simply that parents do not adequately supervise their children. Is it wrong to conclude that?
The scientific method on anything typical is slow, but slow like shaping a bow, stringing it, fletching the arrow, sharpening its head to the desired wound outcome, pulling back, and letting the observation fly through the process easily to bullseye right down to the result.
And if you get anything wrong, the whole thing falls apart. The arrow flies crooked or doesn't sink into the target as accurately or deeply as you want it to, or the bow or string snaps with the slightest bit of tension.
I understand how logic works. But as it turns out, two people can logically analyze a set of data and logically come to completely opposite conclusions based off of their world view (for example, a historian might regard the policies implemented during the Great Depression one way and an economist might regard them another way altogether*). If you want to say that one trail of logic is wrong, you have to explain why that one is wrong and why the other one is truly correct. Using logic. Mind blown yet?*I am not getting into a discussion about this. It's just an example, now drop it and move on
In an argument, you have to construct half of a bow, and keep working with your partner to get the boy right, then both of you must measure the string, the fletching, the arrowhead, the aiming, the pullback, the release.
Sometimes that's true. Sometimes you can make a one-sided argument and still be completely correct. Do you think everyone who's ever made a good bow has always made one with a partner?
Because the point of an argument is to agree. I forget that sometimes. I think we all do. I try desperately to keep it on my mind, you know.
Hey, I'm not going to say I always remember that. In fact, sometimes when I'm faced with an argument I find so adverse to my beliefs I forget that believers believe their beliefs are just as valid as I believe my beliefs to be. But do you not also admit that sometimes people are simply not going to agree on things for any number of reasons? And that sometimes the reasons by which someone disagrees can be completely rational and correct?
But what you're arguing with me is that because a number of people on this site collectively agree with each other---common ideologies, principles, policies, etc., completely understandable to be sure---and I am usually the only vocal dissenting opinion, and because I exhibit what you refer to as a "common sense approach," or if I am not openly citing a piece of evidence to support my claim, that my logic on a particular issue you do not agree with must
be flawed. And you see this as a completely sound logical argument. You make no room for dissenting arguments because you see the dissenting side as wrong without trying to understand it. And then you demand that the dissenting side agree. How is that logical?