|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are you objective? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Straggler writes: I would put forward climate change and gun advocacy as examples of those in denial about facts in much the same way that the tobacco industry was previously. Hi Stragg Just curious if you view this as an example of your objectivity? (Not that I disagree with the views expressed.)He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Since, gun control advocates are only worried about the relatively few human deaths, at the hand of guns, then it sounds really illogical to put it on par with the enormous issue of climate change.
If the goal is to ban rifles and projectiles which kill animals, then one might be able to compare it to the acidification of the oceans and the extinction. It's still a stretch though. Gun control is a pet political issue for the left. Just a convenient "culture war" issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
Whites (as a whole) are the least nationalistic people in the world - especially in western-Europe.
Really? In Africa many nation states are artificial are don't reflect the actual ethno-linguistic groups that live there, hence people don't tend to be attached to their country. Where as Europe actually has a tradition of nationalistic philosophies and has possessed some of the most violently nationalist societies the world has ever seen. Also, I find this idea of "whites" as a people a bit silly. I mean I don't think Spanish people and Georgians are that close culturally. Across Europe people speak several different languages and have very different cultures.Since you mentioned Western Europe, I know many people in France, the UK, Ireland, Germany, e.t.c. often see second-generation African immigrants as basically French, British, Irish, e.t.c. where as a Polish guy would be Polish. I've never really seen this "white" culture or people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
You quoted me saying this.
"Whites (as a whole) are the least nationalistic people in the world - especially in western-Europe." quote:Western Europe made quite a change after World War 2. Germany went from hyper-nationalism during WW2 to being the greatest anti-nationalist force in the world today. Though the issue is considerably more complex than even calling Nazi Germany "nationalistic" because the policy of nationalism was the Nazi policy within Europe. Outside of the "white" world, post WW1 Germany is seen as a victim of European imperialism and WW2 Germany is seen as more supportive of local populations than the awful British Empire. Morocco has been trying since 1987 to become a member of the EU and they have improved human rights considerably to meet the standards. I hope they eventually get let in. Gadaffi of Libya made an (amazing set of) effort(s) first at a pan-Arab state, then he gave up and attempted to set up an African unification. He encouraged light-skinned Libyans to selectively marry black spouses and vice versa. quote:Georgia isn't part of the European Union for starters. And eastern Europeans that are part of the European Union would turn against it if lots of poor EU citizens from the west migrated east. The migration seems to be 1 way (though immigrants don't stay put but happily return home if both the economic and the border situation allows). the anti-nationalist feelings are strongest in the west for sure. quote:Good. Then that backs up my point. One a side note, the Scottish Nationalist Party actually isn't "nationalist". They favor remaining members of the EU (hence European citizenship and migration rights with what would be 28 other countries), and infact have said that the U.K. Independent Party (a true nationalist party) having its way - leaving the EU - would guarantee a split from the U.K. so they could remain part of Europe. If that sounds ironic, then consider the Balkan situation: Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina are trying to become the 29th EU member state (and 30th when 1 follows the other). After the ethnic-cleansing from all sides, it is really ironic that they will become members of a larger open-border entity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
The issue was not that you mentioned how blacks have demonstrated a strong anti-immigration stance but that it was said on this topic. It's a tangent that is completely out of left field as this topic is about objectivity.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I am as prone to personal bias as anyone else.
But in terms of slowly mounting evidence and the sort of resistance that evidence is met with there are stark similarities between the tobacco health issue, climate change and the gun issue. If the statistics and evidence suggested (for example) that nations awash with guns were less violent, safer and relatively free from crime then ultimately I would have to accept that evidence whatever I may want to believe. Ultimately time will tell. But on these issues I am pretty confident that my position is not just a result of personal bias but is actually evidentially sound. But 'the truth can always be questioned' and, like the tobacco issue, the facts will eventually become increasingly obvious to all. Whichever 'side' they support. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
I'd definitely not be objective at all, but I'd try (difficult to know if one actually succeeds) to be objective when it comes to anything that concerns other people's lifestyles or difficulties, which mainly concerns not judging them or thinking I'm aware of all issues those people might face, but also not be pitying which is just a silly narrative.
In addition to that I try to be objective with major issues like global warming, e.t.c. and beyond that apply general fact checking skills to topics I don't know anything about. To be honest I find the most efficient thing to do is read Wikipedia, in the areas I know about it's quite good, so I start off with it on things I don't and check around on good blogs (blogs of experts) to see if it's reasonable and develop my understanding. Of course I'd have the bias that I only do this for things I'm interested in, so I'd try to have no opinion on things I haven't read up on. "Try" being the operative word as it is surprising how many opinions you absorb by osmosis based on what people of one's background typically/should believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... To be honest I find the most efficient thing to do is read Wikipedia, in the areas I know about it's quite good, so I start off with it on things I don't and check around on good blogs (blogs of experts) to see if it's reasonable and develop my understanding. Indeed, wiki is my usual first go-to source, followed by links in the articles to scientific literature and other references. So I support it with a monthly contribution, as it would be difficult to replace. One of the best aspects of wiki in my mind is that it cannot be treated as an absolute source, it is subject to change, and can be changed by anyone. This has led to some problems on touchy topics and edits by people with an agenda, but it also means it can be updated rapidly with new or revised information when it becomes available. There are a couple of pages that I help monitor, and it is always interesting to see a page change, whether you agree with it or if that change affects how you see things. Certainly when it comes to sources for evidence the scientific papers of peer reviewed journals would be top of the list, but often those are behind paywalls and all you can freely access are abstracts. Equally certain in my mind is that "googling" alone is the worst kind of source because (a) there is so much garbage out there posted by idiots, gullible fools, and deluded people (not to mention people with an agenda), and (b) because it can be used as a self-filter where you can cherry-pick results to bolster your position ("the devil can cite scripture for his purpose") and ignore contrary information -- for example: liberals go to liberal news sites while conservatives go to conservative news sites, and neither group gets a complete picture. The difference between wiki and google-glop is that wiki information is passed through a reality check filter. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
This may be slightly more than off topic, but I found this interesting:
http://phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html- xongsmith, 5.7d |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I try to form opinions objectively, but I am sure that I hold a lot of already formed opinions which I cannot easily defended objectively. It is probably impossible to completely remove bias particularly when it is formed on topics that are not completely amenable to the scientific method, and on which even the definitions and basis are not agreed on. Some of our perspectives are colored by our own life experiences and I would not know how to correct for that. I would not even try.
The best that can be done in such situations is to be very careful about your methodology and to attempt to frame your opinions in a persuasive, logical manner regardless of how firmly you hold your opinions. Whether or not your audience agrees with your opinion, the best discussion is when the presentation is at least logical and well grounded and also when the presenter is up front about his bias. Great topic Percy. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
LamarkNewAge writes: Percy admitted that he was thinking of certain whites as anti-immigrant types when he rush-typed the comment in (something you constantly deny). No, Percy did not admit "that he was thinking of certain whites as anti-immigrant types." No, Percy did not "rush-type" the comment in the opening post. What Percy actually said in Message 24 was this:
Percy in Message 24 writes: The sentence "How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country" from the opening post was an example of a poorly supported belief resulting from lack of objectivity. I used that example because of the recent thread With a dying white race, why are we not encouraging more white births?, where that attitude was much expressed. It was not intended as the topic of this thread. This thread is about objectivity. Before you can be objective you at least have to get things right. If you want to discuss attitudes about immigration as examples of objectivity or the lack thereof, then this is the thread for you. If you want to discuss attitudes about immigration as the main topic you should probably propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
From your OP. Here is the original quote in its entire context.
quote: How anybody can say that you weren't describing whites as the most anti-immigration people in the USA is beyond me. "But he was just using this as a poor argument" and "but this isn't really the topic anyway" and "but you aren't objective if you think Percy was really saying that being 'white' is often the dichotomy between how you should see immigration and how things really are in the real world". "Stop displaying a lack of objectivity" "And this really isn't the topic anyway" Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: I am as prone to personal bias as anyone else.But in terms of slowly mounting evidence and the sort of resistance that evidence is met with there are stark similarities between the tobacco health issue, climate change and the gun issue. If the statistics and evidence suggested (for example) that nations awash with guns were less violent, safer and relatively free from crime then ultimately I would have to accept that evidence whatever I may want to believe. Ultimately time will tell. But on these issues I am pretty confident that my position is not just a result of personal bias but is actually evidentially sound. But 'the truth can always be questioned' and, like the tobacco issue, the facts will eventually become increasingly obvious to all. Whichever 'side' they support. I wasn't actually questioning your reasoning or even the correctness of your view. I just thought that there was just a touch of irony in your post in a thread titled "Are you objective".He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote:In what way? Please show me the dichotomy. quote: Forget about the "so on" part. Show me the dichotomy you are thinking of. And the specific issue.
quote: Show me the dichotomy. Never mind, I have it here. 6-4-12 V #92a | Pew Research Center "The growing number of newcomers threaten traditional American values" Agree or disagree? 48% of whites agree and 46% disagree. The national average was 47% agree and 48% disagree. Tell us how each group lacks objectivity so we can understand your point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: O.k. then. (above post was supposed to be a response to #56 or OP not 57)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024