BF2S Forums So Much For Obama The Socialist

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That's like saying the opinion that the sky is blue is coming to a conclusion based on facts.

Well, I guess that depends on how you look at it...  literally.   Blue is both factually a color and a perception dependent on light.

For all practical purposes, the sky being blue is a fact.

To say that Norway has the best quality of life is an opinion, not a fact, but it can be a statement based on fact, like how I described it.

To say that Norway has the best quality of life based on parameters x y and z is a fact. To say that based on that fact Norway has the best quality of life also implies that quality of life is defined by x y and z. That opinion is what your opinion based off of, the arbitrary factual conclusions is irrelevant to your opinion.

So what would an actual opinion be?

Well, I suppose we've found an error in how people usually say things.

Qualitative statements often lack that level of disclosure.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Except that in the context of "I base my opinions on verifiable facts." it makes everything Braddock said a joke. He is trying to claim he bases his opinions on evidence presented to him by credible sources, but the entire "opinion" side of the decision making has to do with his personal value system. Two reasonable people presented with the same perfectly valid facts could form two completely different opinions based on those facts.

Well, going by what you just elaborated on, to say that what Braddock said is a joke is also an opinion.

You've defined his discussion as a joke by your own values.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

To say that it is a joke is an opinion. To have demonstrated it is logically flawed a fact.

But again, I can look at the same facts in a different way and show that the logic is not as flawed as you suggest.

For example, Braddock is mostly pointing out how he uses multiple sources to form his opinions.  The crux of his argument is that he tries to view sources from multiple viewpoints, but mostly "balanced" ones.  Now, we could dispute how balanced a source is, but without going into that, his general suggestion is that using multiple sources of varying and/or balanced perspectives is better than just relying on Glenn Beck, for example.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

We could also say, for example, that listening to multiple perspectives is just deciding who you agree with and who you don't on specific issues. Your opinion doesn't change, but by golly you heard all the arguments and you're an A+ citizen because of it.

Well, if you feel that way, you might as well just always go with your gut.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

We could also say, for example, that listening to multiple perspectives is just deciding who you agree with and who you don't on specific issues. Your opinion doesn't change, but by golly you heard all the arguments and you're an A+ citizen because of it.

awesome

11 Bravo wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

We could also say, for example, that listening to multiple perspectives is just deciding who you agree with and who you don't on specific issues. Your opinion doesn't change, but by golly you heard all the arguments and you're an A+ citizen because of it.

awesome

If you listen to a source you don't agree with and they provide facts that are hard to argue with then you have to either take those facts on board and allow yourself to think critically in light of the new information or choose to ignore the facts and accept that you're being ignorant. You can ignore a baseless opinion as being no better than your own baseless opinion but arguments that present facts are harder to ignore.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Except that in the context of "I base my opinions on verifiable facts." it makes everything Braddock said a joke. He is trying to claim he bases his opinions on evidence presented to him by credible sources, but the entire "opinion" side of the decision making has to do with his personal value system. Two reasonable people presented with the same perfectly valid facts could form two completely different opinions based on those facts.

Two minutes ago you were asking me how it was possible to form an opinion based on facts. Now you're saying that two people presented with the same perfectly valid facts could form two completely different opinions based on those facts. It seems to me you could probably answer your own question.

I don't let the subjective baseless opinions of others inform my own opinion of anything. If you want to sway my opinion on an issue then present me with facts to back up your argument. For example, I'm not going to start believing that Obama is a Communist spy just because Glenn Beck points out that his name happens to be a convenient acronym for something sinister.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

but the entire "opinion" side of the decision making has to do with his personal value system

Everyone has their own personal value system but part of critical thinking is putting it to one side while assessing facts in any argument or debate. Obviously it's impossible to completely override one's own personal value system but it is still possible to think critically and be relatively objective. If Glenn Beck presented decent facts in an argument I'd be forced to take them seriously, unfortunately for him he chooses to showboat and focus on his own subjective interpretation of things rather than pesky facts. I'm not going to let someone like that influence my opinions.

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Two minutes ago you were asking me how it was possible to form an opinion based on facts. Now you're saying that two people presented with the same perfectly valid facts could form two completely different opinions based on those facts. It seems to me you could probably answer your own question.

I don't let the subjective baseless opinions of others inform my own opinion of anything. If you want to sway my opinion on an issue then present me with facts to back up your argument. For example, I'm not going to start believing that Obama is a Communist spy just because Glenn Beck points out that his name happens to be a convenient acronym for something sinister.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

but the entire "opinion" side of the decision making has to do with his personal value system

Everyone has their own personal value system but part of critical thinking is putting it to one side while assessing facts in any argument or debate. Obviously it's impossible to completely override one's own personal value system but it is still possible to think critically and be relatively objective. If Glenn Beck presented decent facts in an argument I'd be forced to take them seriously, unfortunately for him he chooses to showboat and focus on his own subjective interpretation of things rather than pesky facts. I'm not going to let someone like that influence my opinions.

He could never influence your opinion with a fact. He could only influence your opinion by presenting an opinion you found valid in a meaningful way.

For example say Obama took a bribe. If Beck presented proof that Obama took a bribe, that fact is meaningless by itself. If he said that Obama took a bribe AND that it is both illegal and immoral for politicians to take bribes and therefore Obama should be impeached, that is an opinion. That opinion could influence your opinion regarding whether or not Obama should be impeached.

More than likely however you already believe that it is wrong for politicians to take bribes, and upon learning that Obama took a bribe you logically concluded that he should be impeached. Your opinion was not influenced by facts, it was just extended to specifics.

Turquoise wrote:

That seems to be the basis of your viewpoint here.  Not only can opinions change, but so can values.

Opinions are like vectors and facts are like scalars. You can combine a fact and an opinion to get a fact, but you can't combine facts to get an opinion. The direction of an opinion can only be influenced by another opinion.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

On the one hand, I like decreasing government spending overall.

On the other hand, one could argue that NASA is one of the few things that the government runs efficiently.

That sounds like a dangerously European point of view you've got there!

Is it just that Republicans and right-wing leaning individuals like to pick and choose what elements of Socialism they like and dislike? I mean are there any free-market Capitalist right-wingers out there who would advocate the privatisation of the police, the military, or even the postal service or libraries? Nationalised institutions are not inherently 'evil' or doomed to failure, in the same way that privatised institutions are not. Some stuff works best one way, and some the other, and it can be different for every country.

But getting back to my point, if Obama were truly the 'evil socialist' he's being made out to be by idiots like Glenn Beck et al. the last thing he'd be doing is privatising the most famous and celebrated Government-funded space exploration institution in the world.

Give him time. 

Military and the Police are in the Constitution.  It doesn't matter if I dislike them or not.  The post office is rapidly becoming obsolete.  The O said it himself UPS blows them outta the water.  I'm all for disbanding it.  Libraries rape authors.  Nationalized institutions suck ass.  If a privatized institution is a cluster -it fails and one with a better business model will eventually fill the void.

NASA?  Used to be the pride of the country.  Space race?  USA is the leader.  Why would the O want to change that? Hmnmm.

He wants to knee cap NASA?  Sure fits his MO of fucking up the country.  It is a laugh as to his "fiscal responsibility".  Go on.. Blame Bush.  Guess what thought?  The President doesn't make the budget.  I wonder now, who was the in control of the house and senate under the last budget writing during his reign.  This guy has spent more in his first year that was spent under the entire Bush years.  Come on.

You don't think that NASA would be run more effectively and efficiently as a commercial, rather than governmental, enterprise? I disagree wholeheartedly.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-02 06:16:58)

DBBrinson1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You don't think that NASA would be run more effectively and efficiently as a commercial, rather than governmental, enterprise? I disagree wholeheartedly.

I personally think it should be absorbed by the dod.

For what purpose exactly?

Oddly, the USAF tried something like that in the 1950s and got told off.
People seem to want space to be a primarily non-military venture. 

Personally, I think a mixture of gov/civilian funding would be a good solution at the present time.  Many of the costs are currently too high for private firms, but the benefits are still there.  Space research seems like a "public good" in some ways.  (Granted, I don't have extensive knowledge in this area.)