Biden - Approval

[Dill]

(10-22-2022, 08:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote:You are explaining your standard—“Laughable.” That’s the test you use. It’s a pretty weak peg upon which to hang all posturing and positioning to avoid the other option.
Noooooo, it's the word I chose to use to describe my assessment of your position.  It has no more, or less, weight than that.

??? Thought I was agreeing with you. You check your feelings--"laughable" or not?--then render a decision. The feelings function like a standard. That's a principle you using in judging others' statements. Often you share feelings, e.g., I make you "sad," as if presenting evidence, like the feelings are proof. You assign some value to this practice, some effect out there in the world beyond your mind, or you would not be doing it.

I too sometimes have negative feelings about other posters, but I don't share them precisely because just sharing them seems so empty. Nothing is true about other people and/or their arguments because I feel it is. If I had something better, a good argument, evidence, I'd be sharing that. 

(10-22-2022, 08:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:That other option is to agree on standards that are independent of personal/political orientation. These can include values. Then agree on statements made by each woman which can be evaluated with respect to actual events and facts we also can agree are not just “perception.” E.g. the mar a lago raid was not a Biden weaponization of the DoJ but the National archives legal action to recover stolen records.

Nooooo, we can't agree on your standards for a subjective opinion.  Probably because it's, you know, subjective and I find your assessments "laughable".

Well as far as the standards go, if we "agree" on them, then they aren't just "my" standards. We'd be collaborating to decide what works and what doesn't. Equal say/veto.  They'd be OUR standards and perhaps less "laughable" then. And you are invited to propose your own, though I'll say in advance that checking yourfunnybone won't be an acceptable standard for me.

But the troubling part is, I can't get your agreement that public facts are public facts, not just personal subjective dill opinion.

There was a raid on Mar a Lago, right? Yes or no? That would be a judgment of fact. 
Did Gabbard say Biden "weaponized" the DoJ"? also a judgment of fact. 

Was it "weaponization"? Answering that involves further, value-laden (subjective) standards. 
Like should rule of law apply equally to all, yes or no? That would be a (subjective) judgment of value 
(though my personal subjective dill opinion would be that consensus of U.S. citizens pushes it beyond subjective dill opinion.) 

I'm also going to suggest that we fine tune OUR standards by first testing them on someone we both agree is lesser in mental capacity and someone neither of us likes but we agree is VERY intelligent. Like Herschel Walker and Mitch McConnell. 

Or if you suspect a dill trick, you pick the test subjects.

Also. I don't really use the concept of "intelligence" to assess people. That's always been your standard. When it comes to politicians, I prefer knowledge, competence, judgment. Maybe we could compromise there, or if not, I'm willing to stick with your standard.

This could be fun and we could apply our method beyond Harris and Gabbard to whomever is running for office. Other forum members would be welcome to join and judge our efforts. Doesn't have to be a death struggle. It's true that many voters call politicians "intelligent" when the pols agree with them and stupid when they do not. We all could move away from that.