Why do I think kuresu is right?

This is more of a general topic about why people tend to lean one way or the other without reasonable evidence to do so.I'm just going to use kuresu and dronester's discussion in the Expectations For The New Obama Democrat Government thread as an example because it's what got me wondering in the first place.Given the following as fact, what are the possible reasons why I lean towards kuresu's side of the arguement?1 - I do not know anything about politics
2 - I do not know anything about politicians
3 - I have no obejective, verifiable evidence (that I understand, not that it doesn't exist) to sway me one way or the other
4 - I am unable to learn about such existing evidence (let's just say I'm too lazy)I don't want this to be a topic about why kuresu or dronester actually have facts behind their position. That's not what this topic is about. This topic as about why we have irrational tendencies to choose one option over another (or perhaps just lean in that direction), even when we know it is irrational and to explore, specifically, what those tendencies may be.Possible reasons I can come up with:1 - I am more familiar in the past with "kuresu being right" then I am with "dronester being right" for whatever reason (for this topic, I will assume it is simply because kuresu has spent more time on the forums).2 - For whatever reason, I "like" kuresu better than I like dronester. Maybe I feel some connection with one avatar over the other, maybe I have a sense of loyalty just because kuresu's been on the forum longer. Maybe I just like the letter "k" more than the letter "d".3 - Anything else?I've recently read from a source I consider rather intelligent that: We, as people, are irrational beings. We must work to be rational.I must agree with this statement, and I think the idea of this topic is simply an example of such a thing.

Hi Stile. This is a unique and good discussion idea. Regardless of how much I disagree with counterparts I tend to favor those who do not abuse their majority POV advantage by debating in a meanspirited condescending manner. They are more apt to get responses from me since in my busy life I am unable sometimes to respond to all.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Very good point, thanks for the input.Yes, I can totally understand how I can be swayed simply because a certain arguement reflects virtues I hold to be important rather then the actual content of the factual information.Add as well what you mention about time limitations. The fact of the matter is we all have to pay our bills (I'm assuming? ). We just may not have time to spend resources on detailing a rigorous disection of an arguement.

Good morn'n Stile, Gee whiz. I am losing because of an avatar? KURESU's avatar???Man, tough crowd. Since my puckish smile and plucky can-do-attitude is rather lost in the debates, I'll endeavor to find a cute-baby-holding-a-puppy-in-the-rain avatar. Should have known its all about marketing.regards

This has nothing to do with objectively winning or losing that debate, or any other.This topic is simply about identifying irrationalities.I'm quite clearly specifying that my feeling that kuresu is right is based on nothing more than subjective, irrational information.I'm just asking what sort of things could be causing such a feeling. This, actually, is on topic. I may very well lean towards kuresu's side because of "marketing." What I'm looking for is perhaps something a bit more specific. As buzsaw said, it may be that I find kuresu's writing style to better reflect certain virtues I subjectively hold as valuable. Or, maybe it's just because I may like reality TV over cartoons (that's not true.. I like cartoons).But please don't take offense. This topic isn't about exploring any objective information behind you or kuresu's posts. This topic is explicitly about exploring what subjective, irrational information can tend to affect one's "feelings."

hey again Stile, My reply was completely joking, you didn't have to reply. I certainly do not take offense to your posts. As a matter of fact, I think it is a good topic.I have three brothers and we all tease eachother mercilessly. It is our way. regards

Hi Stile, I know not many will agree with what I have to say but here is my 2 cents worth anyway. Man chose to know good and evil, right and wrong and has been deciding what is right and what is wrong every since.There are all kind of events and things that enter into our decision making.But we still decide for whatever reason we choose.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Interesting. Are you suggesting that my irrational, and therefore quite possibly wrong, feelings that kuresu is right in this arguement could be because we have chosen the ability to choose between good and evil?That would mean that our ability to choose between good and evil is entirely useless when we want to know if something is actually right or wrong.That is, let's say that some objective evidence comes about that shows beyond all doubt that dronester is correct.My feeling that kuresu was correct would be wrong.
Therefore, my ability to choose between good and evil was wrong.
Therefore, my ability to choose between good and evil is entirely useless when we want to know if something is actually right or wrong.I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea. I certainly agree that it's quite possible that my irrational feelings come from some divinely imparted ability (even though we chose it) to feel out right from wrong.However, the conclusion is that these feelings are notorious for being incorrect. And I do not understand why you would want add a divine action into something that is notorious for being incorrect.

Hi Stile, That is the reason our prisons are full, as well as all the problems going on in the world.We decided what is right and wrong. We have no guidelines unless we choose them. I did not say this ability was divinely imparted.I said man chose to know good and evil.Man has been making the decision what is right and wrong every since.God has nothing to do with what man chooses is right and wrong today unless man chooses to adopt God's rules to go by. I am not adding divine action of any kind into the equation.The only action God had was to give man a choice.From the time man made that choice we have been on our own and as you pointed out we have royally messed up.The only way God has any input today is if man chooses to accept God and His way.I play with computers a lot and I have found out if you put garbage in you will get garbage out.The human mind can only read what we store in the brain so if we put garbage in our brains we will get garbage out.That is one of the things that amazes me about the threads on moral issues. How do we decide what is moral and what is not.There are thousands if not millions of things that affect the decisions we make.So as your OP pointed out you may choose any or many of all kinds of things and let them influence your decisions.But in the end they are your decisions makes no difference what you base them on.I think we have talked about this several times and we call it man's free will to do as he pleases for whatever reason he chooses.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

But it most certainly does make a difference. We can choose to use rationality and objective evidence to help make our decisions... in which case we really do know if we are right or wrong.
Or, we can use irrationality and subjective experience to help make our decisions... in which case we have no idea if we're actually right or wrong.
Knowing we really are right or not most certainly is not "no difference."But this topic isn't about whether we should use irrationality or objective evidence. This topic is simply about what sort of irrational reasons exist and how effective they are.
Please try to stick to the topic.

Hi Stile,In your OP you stated: You asked why we have irrational tendencies.I gave you my opinion.You then asked questions which I tried to answer. On topic or off topic who decides what is irrational?As far as Stile is concerned Stile decides.What does Stile base his decisions on?Stile bases his decisions on what he has decided is irrational.You make your decisions because you have the ability to make any choice for what ever reason you choose to make a particular decision.This will be my last post concerning this topic.That is my choice.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The reasons you've listed seem to fall into a single category.I am part of your tribe.We have a tendency to prefer our own community over others. Thus, we are more likely to think someone in our community is correct, or more likely to defend that person when they are under attack. We do this even if the person may be wrong or guilty, unless, for example, that person's actions almost led to the death of the community.I think this goes back to a time when community cohesiveness was crucial for survival (and in some ways, it still is).

You think kuresu is right because he actually does a bit of research and so can back his shit up with real world facts. That's why you think kuresu is right. This post in the Obama thread is a great example of his work, and it almost got a POTM nomination from me if I didn't suddenly remember that I have a real job I gotta work at.

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

Yes, and I commented that your input was very interesting in the confusing sort of way. As far as this topic is concerned, I decided in the OP when I (implicitly) defined "irrational" to be those decisions we make that do not contain objective, verifiable information. If you care about my personal decisions.. you can start another thread, I'll likely join you there. Or you can find another thread I've been in where this is more to the point. This thread is not about what I base my decisions on. This thread is about possible motivations behind irrational tendencies that may or may not affect anyone's decision making process. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. This thread is not about what I do, though. This thread is about when we are making irrational decisions (conciously or not) and what sort of information affects those decisions. Yes, however this is obvious and trivial and pretty close to useless information. What this topic is about is exploring any and all types of reasoning behind irrational decisions. You're free (and encouraged) to participate, if you can stay on topic.Sometimes I think you may be trying to be difficult.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.Even buz's idea about you portraying virtues I might hold similar interests in can be brought back to something like this as well.