Trump to sign EO to investigate...

[GMDino]

(05-11-2017, 05:23 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The point is you're being biased as bfine has already noted.

You said "Investigation comes before evidence" in regards to the Trump/Russia story. Now you turn around and say (in my own words) "Trump doesn't have evidence of voter fraud so why should there be an investigation".

If you don't see whats wrong with that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Investigation into leaks during campaign shows evidence that the Russians were behind it.

Russians try and interfere in election with leaks and fake news.

As the investigation continues: 

* Multiple people tied to the Trump campaign, family and administration "forgot" to mention their interactions with Russians during campaign and after.

* Flynn fired for lying about his interaction with the Russians only AFTER the POTUS defends him.

* POTUS says it was Obama's fault for hiring Flynn in the first place.

* Turns out Obama told POTUS about Flynn but Trump thought it "was in jest."

* Sessions has to recuse himself from the investigation because he too "forgot" to mention his interactions with Russians while working with the Trump campaign.

Versus

Trump tweeted one time that he would have won the popular vote if 3 million illegals had not voted.

See?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-11-2017, 05:23 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The point is you're being biased as bfine has already noted.

You said "Investigation comes before evidence" in regards to the Trump/Russia story. Now you turn around and say (in my own words) "Trump doesn't have evidence of voter fraud so why should there be an investigation".

If you don't see whats wrong with that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Everyone in here has a bias as bfine also pointed out. So what's the point in pointing out someone has a bias when it is a given everyone has a bias?

[CageTheBengal]

Quote:Nately120
The great thing about facts is that you can completely ignore them when they don't fit your pre-conceived agenda. 

presense of facts that prove me right = irrefutable proof that I'm right.  Can't argue with facts!
lack of facts that prove me right = I'm right, but the investigation failed and/or doesn't prove I'm wrong
presence of facts that prove me wrong = fake facts, biased or dishonest researchers/investigators


Basically, my feelings say that I'm right until I find evidence that I am right which makes me SUPER RIGHT and if I find evidence that I'm wrong...well, I can just explain why I'm still right and those "facts" are wrong.  

Intuition can be a great tool to use unless your bias is so strong it screws up how you perceive facts and your ego is so big that nobody can tell you any differently.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-11-2017, 05:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Everyone in here has a bias as bfine also pointed out. So what's the point in pointing out someone has a bias when it is a given everyone has a bias?

I can't tell if you just asked a serious question or not.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-11-2017, 05:52 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I can't tell if you just asked a serious question or not.

Yes.

[*Nately120*]

(05-11-2017, 05:51 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Intuition can be a great tool to use unless your bias is so strong it screws up how you perceive facts and your ego is so big that nobody can tell you any differently.

Agreed.  Personally, I rarely trust the intuition of a person who gets defensive or offensive when you have the nerve to ask him why he thinks the way he does.  Amazingly, asking a person to explain the reasons behind his beliefs has become a giant social faux pass in this culture.

[BmorePat87]

I just want to know why we're investigating this when issues with as much evidence (like Bigfoot or whether or not Nicholas Cage is a good actor) are not getting their own independent commissions.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-11-2017, 06:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I just want to know why we're investigating this when issues with as much evidence (like Bigfoot or whether or not Nicholas Cage is a good actor) are not getting their own independent commissions.

Setting up a discussion about increasing voter IDs (aka suppression). It's the only chance the repubes have. You see the piece about the 200K suppressed votes in WI? That's their case study.

[Goalpost]

Without enforcement, nobody knows the actual numbers. The prior administration was more interested in other voting issues rather than concern itself with fraud. And that's fine. That is where the priorities were.
In 2009, 109 people were cited for jaywalking in Seattle. So I guess only 109 people jaywalked that year in Seattle right?
In 2014, 29,470 people were cited for driving without a seatbelt in Tennessee. In 2015, 103,733 people were cited. The reason...Tennessee made an effort to enforce seatbelt violations in 2015.

[BmorePat87]

(05-11-2017, 07:12 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Without enforcement, nobody knows the actual numbers.  The prior administration was more interested in other voting issues rather than concern itself with fraud.  And that's fine.  That is where the priorities were.
In 2009, 109 people were cited for jaywalking in Seattle.  So I guess only 109 people jaywalked that year in Seattle right?
In 2014, 29,470 people were cited for driving without a seatbelt in Tennessee.  In 2015, 103,733 people were cited.  The reason...Tennessee made an effort to enforce seatbelt violations in 2015.

but the allegation from the president is that 3-5 million people voted illegally. 3% of all votes being illegally casted is a pretty big claim that would undoubtably have some bit of evidence. There's not even evidence that 30k voted illegally 

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-11-2017, 05:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Everyone in here has a bias as bfine also pointed out. So what's the point in pointing out someone has a bias when it is a given everyone has a bias?

The reason you point out biases is not to show that someone is a biased person. Everyone is biased as has already been said. You point out biases to show an unfairness in argumentation and thus the meaningfulness or persuasiveness of such arguments lose their ability to be so.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-11-2017, 07:47 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The reason you point out biases is not to show that someone is a biased person. Everyone is biased as has already been said. You point out biases to show an unfairness in argumentation and thus the meaningfulness or persuasiveness of such arguments lose their ability to be so.

The persuasiveness of my argument can be affected by your bias. However, pointing out your bias doesn't affect the persuasiveness of my argument.

If I facetiously write, "At least you have an open mind," to point out you are biased (which we already know everyone is) it doesn't make my argument more or less persuasive. Meanwhile our biases are already evident.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-11-2017, 08:48 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The persuasiveness of my argument can be affected by your bias. However, pointing out your bias doesn't affect the persuasiveness of my argument.

If I facetiously write, "At least you have an open mind," to point out you are biased (which we already know everyone is) it doesn't make my argument more or less persuasive. Meanwhile our biases are already evident.

Well I mean, if you have a problem with what bfine said, you should probably take that up with bfine. I'm not claiming that accusing someone of bias affects the accusers argument. I'm saying it affects the accused individual's argument because it shows that they are not being fair in what they are arguing. The fact that we all have biases is irrelevant. It's what our specific biases say about specific arguments that are important and should be pointed out.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-11-2017, 09:09 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Well I mean, if you have a problem with what bfine said, you should probably take that up with bfine. 

If you don't want to talk about it, stop talking about it.

Quote:I'm not claiming that accusing someone of bias affects the accusers argument. I'm saying it affects the accused individual's argument because it shows that they are not being fair in what they are arguing. The fact that we all have biases is irrelevant. It's what our specific biases say about specific arguments that are important and should be pointed out.

At least you're open minded about it.

Did that affect the persuasiveness of your argument? No.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-11-2017, 09:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you don't want to talk about it, stop talking about it.

What do you mean?

Quote:At least you're open minded about it. 


Did that affect the persuasiveness of your argument?  No.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-11-2017, 11:28 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: What do you mean?

You told me to take it up with bfine, but you're the one who keeps responding. If you don't want to respond, stop responding.

Quote:I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

Just pointing out your bias, to point out that your point about pointing out someone's bias decreases their argument's persuasiveness by subsequently pointing out your bias doesn't decrease the persuasiveness of your argument as you erroneously pointed out previously.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-12-2017, 12:19 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You told me to take it up with bfine, but you're the one who keeps responding. If you don't want to respond, stop responding.

Yeah because you're quoting something bfine said that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You said "At least you hAve an open mind" as some kind of counterpoint, but it doesn't counter anything I said.

Quote:Just pointing out your bias, to point out that your point about pointing out someone's bias decreases their argument's persuasiveness by subsequently  pointing out your bias doesn't decrease the persuasiveness of your argument as you erroneously pointed out previously.

What am I being biased about? I'm confused as to what bias you're pointing out that relates to the argument I made about biases.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-12-2017, 07:23 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Yeah because you're quoting something bfine said that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Did you point out someone was biased?  Yes. So it does have something to do with what you are saying.  If you don't want to discuss bias then just stop talking about bias.

Quote:You said "At least you hAve an open mind" as some kind of counterpoint, but it doesn't counter anything I said.

I'm just pointing out your bias.  And the reason I am pointing out your bias is . . .

(05-11-2017, 07:47 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: to show an unfairness in argumentation and thus the meaningfulness or persuasiveness of such arguments lose their ability to be so.

So by pointing out your bias your arguments lose their meaningfulness or persuavieness, at least according to you.

Quote:What am I being biased about?

Anything you have an opinion on.  To quote you again, what your biased about is irrelevant . . .

(05-11-2017, 09:09 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The fact that we all have biases is irrelevant.

So even though we all have biases, having biases is irrelevant (according to you.)  Apparently, pointing out other's bias, which as we have already established is a given with everybody, is the relevant part because it reduces the meaningfulness of the other's argument.

Quote:I'm confused as to what bias you're pointing out that relates to the argument I made about biases.

Again, what you're biased about is "irrelevant."  I'm just pointing your bias out because it reduces the meaningfulness of your argument; your argument, not mine.

My contention is pointing out someone's bias is nothing more than pointing a finger.  You have a bias, I have a bias, everyone has a bias, and we all know everyone has a bias, and we all know that we all know that everyone has a bias.  So what is the point?  Why do it?  Why tell someone, "At least you have an open mind," when you unequivocally mean the opposite?  With the specific comment that started this discussion, it is another passive aggressive insult in a pattern of passive aggressive insults meant to convey to the other person they aren't open minded at all, but rather they are biased.  But, we already know everybody is biased.  To put it in plain English, it is nothing more than a dig at the other person.  Some people just aren't honest enough to admit what they're doing.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-12-2017, 10:23 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did you point out someone was biased?  Yes. So it does have something to do with what you are saying.  If you don't want to discuss bias then just stop talking about bias.



I'm just pointing out your bias.  And the reason I am pointing out your bias is . . .



So by pointing out your bias your arguments lose their meaningfulness or persuavieness, at least according to you.


Anything you have an opinion on.  To quote you again, what your biased about is irrelevant . . .


So even though we all have biases, having biases is irrelevant (according to you.)  Apparently, pointing out other's bias, which as we have already established is a given with everybody, is the relevant part because it reduces the meaningfulness of the other's argument.


Again, what you're biased about is "irrelevant."  I'm just pointing your bias out because it reduces the meaningfulness of your argument; your argument, not mine.

My contention is pointing out someone's bias is nothing more than pointing a finger.  You have a bias, I have a bias, everyone has a bias, and we all know everyone has a bias, and we all know that we all know that everyone has a bias.  So what is the point?  Why do it?  Why tell someone, "At least you have an open mind," when you unequivocally mean the opposite?  With the specific comment that started this discussion, it is another passive aggressive insult in a pattern of passive aggressive insults meant to convey to the other person they aren't open minded at all, but rather they are biased.  But, we already know everybody is biased.  To put it in plain English, it is nothing more than a dig at the other person.  Some people just aren't honest enough to admit what they're doing.

You're missing the entire point that I'm not the one who said "At least you have an open mind". The fact that you keep quoting it as if it's something I said is making absolutely no sense to me. 

You're also taking my comment about people being biased being irrelevant out of context, perhaps because it seemed unclear what I was saying. 

When I said everyone being biased is irrelevant, I was saying it is irrelevant to the point that I'm making which is that everyone being biased isn't what matters in the context of specific arguments. What matters is what theyre being biased about and how that plays into what they are arguing.

I find it extremely strange that you out of all people are trying to play the saint card. You of all people are talking about "passive agressiveness". Please spare me the self righteousness. If you're going to hold an argument to a set of standards but not hold a comparable argument to those same set of standards then you need to re-evaluate your argument. 

This has nothing to do with finger pointing and everything to do with adressing unfairness when it present itself in an argumentative environment. You're honestly going to sit here and tell me that if you were having a discussion with someone and they were blatantly being biased that you wouldn't call them out on it? Aren't you the same person that always seems to be playing the game of "gotcha"?

Youre arguing something different than what I am putting forth. I am not pointing out bias to show that someone is a biased person. I'm pointing out the bias to show there is unfairness in the argument. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-12-2017, 01:39 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: You're missing the entire point that I'm not the one who said "At least you have an open mind". The fact that you keep quoting it as if it's something I said is making absolutely no sense to me. 

You're also taking my comment about people being biased being irrelevant out of context, perhaps because it seemed unclear what I was saying. 

When I said everyone being biased is irrelevant, I was saying it is irrelevant to the point that I'm making which is that everyone being biased isn't what matters in the context of specific arguments. What matters is what theyre being biased about and how that plays into what they are arguing.

I find it extremely strange that you out of all people are trying to play the saint card. You of all people are talking about "passive agressiveness". Please spare me the self righteousness. If you're going to hold an argument to a set of standards but not hold a comparable argument to those same set of standards then you need to re-evaluate your argument. 

This has nothing to do with finger pointing and everything to do with adressing unfairness when it present itself in an argumentative environment. You're honestly going to sit here and tell me that if you were having a discussion with someone and they were blatantly being biased that you wouldn't call them out on it? Aren't you the same person that always seems to be playing the game of "gotcha"?

Youre arguing something different than what I am putting forth. I am not pointing out bias to show that someone is a biased person. I'm pointing out the bias to show there is unfairness in the argument. 

That's why I'm pointing out your bias.

PS  Have I ever pointed out your bias in any of your blantantly biased threads about Trump?  I don't think I have.  Also, I'm frequenlty accused of playing a game of "gotcha," but just because I'm accused of that doesn't mean it is actually true.  But, if playing the game of "gotcha" means I'm trying to prove someone wrong or leading them to reach a conclusion on their own so they will understand they are wrong, then I'm guilty as charged.  If you can prove me wrong or lead me to reach a different conclusion, be my guest.  If you can, you're actually doing me a service by forcing me to re-evaluate my belief.  If you actually do, I'll do you the courtesy of not whining about you playing "gotcha."