Engineering Reality

Gaugingcatenate said:

You haven't a clue do you?

Do not know where to go as I have cut off your aimless wanderings, sliced away the fat showing the bone. Now you need to prove your main assertion. Have at it.

Oh, and still waiting for that definition of liberalism...

Click to expand...

Why? I have no interest in jumping through hoops. You wanted to talk about my claim that rights are won by liberals. It's only a few posts back- go check.
You want 'liberal' defined, go to a dictionary. If I was to give you one, it'd be a cut-and-paste from, probably, Merriam-Webster.
What about drug laws? Liberals are getting pot laws, uh, liberalized, against the resistance of conservatives. Yes?

Grand Mal said:

We're talking about how rights and freedom are won by liberals, right? Against resistance by conservatives?
I think you're in the process of proving my point for me.

Click to expand...

"I think you're in the process of proving my point for me."

Oh yeah, I would say he did. Trump heads can't help it.

But, in fact, when has the world EVER seen progress out of conservatives? They're very being is to be as backward as possible. The Conservatives just took a huge beating at the polls here in Canada, Stephen Harper has become a non-person; yet, they are still promising change; change that will see Muslims tested for "Canadianess", the cancellation of the most successful drug treatment program in the world [Insight] and a host of backward moves, tax breaks for the wealthy and on and on.

Nor do I see any Trump heads talking about civil rights, only the 2nd amendment. The right of free speech i always the first to go....and we've seen how Trump handles criticism.

Gaugingcatenate said:

You haven't a clue do you?

Do not know where to go as I have cut off your aimless wanderings, sliced away the fat showing the bone. Now you need to prove your main assertion. Have at it.

Oh, and still waiting for that definition of liberalism...

Click to expand...

I do believe you have proved his "main assertion" for him.

EvMetro said:

I am open to what you suggest, but how are you able to know for sure that you are not in fact in the box? Take a look at my last paragraph again. How do you know that there is not a world of information beyond what you are aware of that would allow you to more accurately perceive the political landscape? If what my OP suggests is true, how do you know that I do not see you from outside of a box?

Click to expand...

Said the pot to the kettle.

joG said:

A real Mack the Knife you are, aren't you.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know about that, depending on how one defines that phrase. While I am no Bobby Darin just singing a tune here, however, and I would modify the song that goes something like this,

Oh, the shark has pretty teeth, dear,
And he shows them pearly white
Just a jack-knife has Macheath, dear
And he keeps it out of sight.

To say that I don't keep my knife out of sight. Mine is up front, like my pearly whites. And would add the verse that is generally left out as a good theme:


There are some who are in darkness
And the others are in light
And you see the ones in brightness
Those in darkness drop from sight.

Fearandloathing said:

I do believe you have proved his "main assertion" for him.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure he's going to try to deflect to this 'define liberalism' sidebar and ignore the discussion that he wishes he hadn't asked for in the first place.

Fearandloathing said:

I do believe you have proved his "main assertion" for him.

Click to expand...

Speak it to me brother.

Actually, get away from speaking it and PROVE IT. He sure as hell hasn't done a damn thing but wander around trying to get me to follow him in his circles. Hasn't even defined the term he demanded be defined yet after several stiff reminders to do so. That you are convinced by such silliness is quite obvious. Proving your point is a bit harder and you always seem about ten gallons short in filling a nine gallon tank. Yanno?


From your above-styled clueless hodge podge of nothingness, maybe that fools your fellow Canadians... I am quite sure that in the past such aimless musings could be used during those cold-ass winters as good tender to start fires to warm hearth and home. Now these internet ones are just completely useless, being as cold as the winter outside without the wood pulp to fortify them with something of substance.

Please, if you are going to side with someone that has not made the first move in a proof, take up the cudgel and try to beat me... don't just clap after an empty attempt.

How's your boy Trudeau doing? I mean besides bowing in genuflective obeisance to the late tyrant, Fidel we hardly hear of the boy wonder? Got that Canadian economy just steaming hot, don't he? Not that I care, but Canada will ride the Trump train to a better economy. Then all the libs can say, "See, with a lib in power, we do so much better".

What a laugh. With an economy at best questionable and in the doldrums, bet ya ten to one it will improve now.

All Trump, pal.

Get back to me when you can prove something, ANYTHING. Anything at all.

Grand Mal said:

Pretty sure he's going to try to deflect to this 'define liberalism' sidebar and ignore the discussion that he wishes he hadn't asked for in the first place.

Click to expand...

Good lord, for the third time define the term you said YOU required be first defined.

Then show me where liberals have won all our rights and freedoms for us. You have yet define, as was your own requirement, much less prove anything. Its not MY assertion, it is YOURS.

Grand Mal said:

Why? I have no interest in jumping through hoops. You wanted to talk about my claim that rights are won by liberals. It's only a few posts back- go check.
You want 'liberal' defined, go to a dictionary. If I was to give you one, it'd be a cut-and-paste from, probably, Merriam-Webster.
What about drug laws? Liberals are getting pot laws, uh, liberalized, against the resistance of conservatives. Yes?

Click to expand...

Ahh, but you see, it would be conservative to go back to the way it was before the laws were created to make pot illegal, am I right?

Conservatives are for limited government, let individuals make choices in their own lives and also bear the responsibilities for those choices.

As to the word liberal, YOU wanted it defined, I find your choice of dictionary, M-W to have an atrocious definition and so, as it was YOUR requirement when we started this, either define it or concede, your CHOICE.

I tire of your hit and miss aimlessness. And pragmatically, Canadian heritage and culture is just enough different from US heritage and culture that we expressly need those definitions agreed upon up front. Our conservatism is different from yours. Ours tries to conserve that from our founding, you have a different history.

This thread is really interesting, since it is such a simple thing that I have presented. There are two sets of information about the theme of the forum. Lefty biased news, and the rest of the news. Those who limit their consumption of media to what the lefty media is feeding their base are not going to know the rest of the news, since the lefty media only presents agenda that promotes the lefty cause or hurts the righty cause. No matter how lefties on this thread try to spin it, they simply do not know the media that they do not consume. It is like taking a foreign language course. If you take french, but do not take german, you will only know french, and you won't know german. Those who consume both lefty media, as well as righty media, will know both sets of information. Those who take both french and german, will know both languages.

Lefties will argue this like moths fly into the flame, so there is no way to ever conclude. They will insist that they know the rest of the news just fine, from everything that they have learned about it through the lens of the lefty media. Lefties will insist that the rest of the news is not credible, since it is not lefty media. Lefties will not ever recognize that NONE of the news or propaganda is worth a hoot, regardless of if it is lefty media or the rest of the media. The truth can rarely be known, so we must triangulate the "most likely truth" from as broad a menu as possible.

EvMetro said:

This thread is really interesting, since it is such a simple thing that I have presented. There are two sets of information about the theme of the forum. Lefty biased news, and the rest of the news. Those who limit their consumption of media to what the lefty media is feeding their base are not going to know the rest of the news, since the lefty media only presents agenda that promotes the lefty cause or hurts the righty cause. No matter how lefties on this thread try to spin it, they simply do not know the media that they do not consume. It is like taking a foreign language course. If you take french, but do not take german, you will only know french, and you won't know german. Those who consume both lefty media, as well as righty media, will know both sets of information. Those who take both french and german, will know both languages.

Lefties will argue this like moths fly into the flame, so there is no way to ever conclude. They will insist that they know the rest of the news just fine, from everything that they have learned about it through the lens of the lefty media. Lefties will insist that the rest of the news is not credible, since it is not lefty media. Lefties will not ever recognize that NONE of the news or propaganda is worth a hoot, regardless of if it is lefty media or the rest of the media. The truth can rarely be known, so we must triangulate the "most likely truth" from as broad a menu as possible.

Click to expand...

What do you consider non-Lefty news? Colin Flaherty? RT? Breitbart?

Gaugingcatenate said:

Good lord, for the third time define the term you said YOU required be first defined.

Then show me where liberals have won all our rights and freedoms for us. You have yet define, as was your own requirement, much less prove anything. Its not MY assertion, it is YOURS.

Click to expand...

I told you at the get-go that I accept M-W or OED for definitions. If that's not acceptable to you, leave the definition issue behind and move on. It's all you'll get from me about definitions.
Of course liberals have won rights and freedoms against conservative opposition. You don't suppose conservatives have won rights, do you? Who would they have won them from? Or maybe you think rights can be granted by authorities. That's the only way conservatives can get them if liberals dont win them for them.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Ahh, but you see, it would be conservative to go back to the way it was before the laws were created to make pot illegal, am I right?

Conservatives are for limited government, let individuals make choices in their own lives and also bear the responsibilities for those choices.

As to the word liberal, YOU wanted it defined, I find your choice of dictionary, M-W to have an atrocious definition and so, as it was YOUR requirement when we started this, either define it or concede, your CHOICE.

I tire of your hit and miss aimlessness. And pragmatically, Canadian heritage and culture is just enough different from US heritage and culture that we expressly need those definitions agreed upon up front. Our conservatism is different from yours. Ours tries to conserve that from our founding, you have a different history.

Click to expand...

I certainly won't accept your definition of a word. If you can't accept a dictionary definition, if you want to quibble, you're going to do it without me. I don't quibble.
As for your 'heritage and culture', you either speak English or you've invented a dialect. Which is it?

Grand Mal said:

I told you at the get-go that I accept M-W or OED for definitions. If that's not acceptable to you, leave the definition issue behind and move on. It's all you'll get from me about definitions.
Of course liberals have won rights and freedoms against conservative opposition. You don't suppose conservatives have won rights, do you? Who would they have won them from? Or maybe you think rights can be granted by authorities. That's the only way conservatives can get them if liberals dont win them for them.

Click to expand...

Many of our US rights were not won by liberals, but were handed down from English law.

THAT, my friend, would be CONSERVATIVE.

Grand Mal said:

I certainly won't accept your definition of a word. If you can't accept a dictionary definition, if you want to quibble, you're going to do it without me. I don't quibble.
As for your 'heritage and culture', you either speak English or you've invented a dialect. Which is it?

Click to expand...

You lose. Two ways, I said define or concede AND You have proved you haven't a clue as to differences in culture, history and heritage.

Check back with me when you get a clue.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Many of our US rights were not won by liberals, but were handed down from English law.

THAT, my friend, would be CONSERVATIVE.

Click to expand...

Are you asserting there were no liberals in England? Where do you think liberalism was invented?

Gaugingcatenate said:

You lose. Two ways, I said define or concede AND You have proved you haven't a clue as to differences in culture, history and heritage.

Check back with me when you get a clue.

Click to expand...

(sigh)
As I said, I don't quibble. Check back with me when you want to continue a discussion that you initiated.

Grand Mal said:

Are you asserting there were no liberals in England? Where do you think liberalism was invented?

Click to expand...

I am asserting this about OUR rights, again one of the reasons why WE friggin needed to establish FROM THE BEGINNING what our TERMS exactly are. That MY COUNTRY has many of OUR rights that harken back to previously established ENGLISH LAW... which in turn often had their origins even earlier.

The rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, for instance, have a long history that way way predates our, my country's, founding. Athens and Rome had them. So, preserving/conserving the good rights from the past would be.... guess what???

CONSERVATIVE.

Gaugingcatenate said:

I am asserting this about OUR rights, again one of the reasons why WE friggin needed to establish FROM THE BEGINNING what our TERMS exactly are. That MY COUNTRY has many of OUR rights that harken back to previously established ENGLISH LAW... which in turn often had their origins even earlier.

The rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, for instance, have a long history that way way predates our, my country's, founding. Athens and Rome had them. So, preserving/conserving the good rights from the past would be.... guess what???

CONSERVATIVE.

Click to expand...

Hang on to that, with both hands. Conservatives accept what's granted them. Gratefully. Liberals go and get more. Liberals don't settle. Conservatives want to make the best they can with what's granted them, liberals want more.
The rights in English Common Law were won by liberals. The process wasn't invented in the US but it was accellerated there.

Grand Mal said:

Hang on to that, with both hands. Conservatives accept what's granted them. Gratefully. Liberals go and get more. Liberals don't settle. Conservatives want to make the best they can with what's granted them, liberals want more.
The rights in English Common Law were won by liberals. The process wasn't invented in the US but it was accellerated there.

Click to expand...

So you are basically claiming anything throughout time immemorial that was ever a right, no matter how long established and from whence it originally came can be claimed by liberals no matter what...

Yep, what a waste of my time, no intelligent discussion is possible with someone that will not define his terms and has no true idea what he is talking about. Please excuse me, I have more important things with which to concern myself.

EvMetro said:

This thread is really interesting, since it is such a simple thing that I have presented. There are two sets of information about the theme of the forum. Lefty biased news, and the rest of the news. Those who limit their consumption of media to what the lefty media is feeding their base are not going to know the rest of the news, since the lefty media only presents agenda that promotes the lefty cause or hurts the righty cause. No matter how lefties on this thread try to spin it, they simply do not know the media that they do not consume. It is like taking a foreign language course. If you take french, but do not take german, you will only know french, and you won't know german. Those who consume both lefty media, as well as righty media, will know both sets of information. Those who take both french and german, will know both languages.

Click to expand...

I'm wanting to inform myself. So be specific - which "righty" news sources should I consume regularly so I can someday know as much as you?

Lefties will argue this like moths fly into the flame, so there is no way to ever conclude. They will insist that they know the rest of the news just fine, from everything that they have learned about it through the lens of the lefty media. Lefties will insist that the rest of the news is not credible, since it is not lefty media. Lefties will not ever recognize that NONE of the news or propaganda is worth a hoot, regardless of if it is lefty media or the rest of the media. The truth can rarely be known, so we must triangulate the "most likely truth" from as broad a menu as possible.

Click to expand...

Again, what is the "rest of the news" that I don't think is credible. You keep talking in generalities and baseless assertions, so it's actually impossible to debate.

Just for example it is false that "NONE" of the news is "worth a hoot." I suppose in some way it's all "biased" because perfect objectivity is not possible, but there are trustworthy writers and outlets who faithfully report facts and do an honest job analyzing the data. Doesn't mean their analysis is the only one, or correct, but that's not what you're saying. Essentially you're asserting if I want to know about economic matters, for example, then I should treat writings by economists and those with a track record of success and those who couldn't pass Econ 101 as equally important in my daily readings so I can "triangulate" the "truth."

Gaugingcatenate said:

So you are basically claiming anything throughout time immemorial that was ever a right, no matter how long established and from whence it originally came can be claimed by liberals no matter what...

Yep, what a waste of my time, no intelligent discussion is possible with someone that will not define his terms and has no true idea what he is talking about. Please excuse me, I have more important things with which to concern myself.

Click to expand...

My terms were defined.
You're excused.

JasperL said:

I'm wanting to inform myself. So be specific - which "righty" news sources should I consume regularly so I can someday know as much as you?

Click to expand...

There is no need to look specifically for "righty" news. The idea here is to avoid being limited to one specific partisan bias when gathering information with which you will be forming your perception of the political landscape. One never needs to look for lefty biased media, since it is everywhere, but one needs to actually go looking for media that is not.

In order to become well informed from a broad menu of media, one must be able to separate from his confirmation bias. This is very difficult to do, since you will still be trying to objectively view media through your own built in subjective lens, but it can be done. If you are lefty for example, and you "know" that all things Trump are bad, wrong, lies, whatever, you would want to consume media that proves otherwise. It would be natural to search for media that proves what you already "know", but this is the confirmation bias problem. Step away from your confirmation bias and hypothetically place yourself as being employed to find out how Trump is nothing but right, good, and honest, even though your heart tells you otherwise. What you are doing, is finding a plausible path that your political opponent is right and you are wrong, even if you know that you really are right.

Some folks may already know that I am in several political forums under the name that I use here, but what a lot of folks do not know, is that I am also on a couple political forums as a lefty, using a different screen name and identity. I actively debate with righties like myself, and am able to stand my ground as a progressive liberal. When I post on the forums where I am a lefty, I get under the skin of righties just as much as I do the lefties on this thread. Being a lefty on a couple sites means that I am arguing on behalf of my political opposition, but it also teaches me that there are parts of leftyism that have merit, things I would not have known if I had not argued against my own confirmation bias.

Again, what is the "rest of the news" that I don't think is credible. You keep talking in generalities and baseless assertions, so it's actually impossible to debate.

Click to expand...

Glad you asked. You picked up that I specified "the rest of the news", which includes more than simply "righty news". The rest of the news just means news from all the rest of the partisan biases. We saw during the election cycle, the usual Democrat biased news, but the Republican biased news was broken into two parts. Establishment Repub news was a different bias than anti establishment Repub news, and one could easily get locked into one or the other, the way lefties got locked onto lefty only news. The idea here is to find a plausible path that each partisan view is the correct one, and not just find news that proves your own confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is why lefties can't see outside of the lefty media box, so confirmation bias needs to be checked.

Just for example it is false that "NONE" of the news is "worth a hoot." I suppose in some way it's all "biased" because perfect objectivity is not possible, but there are trustworthy writers and outlets who faithfully report facts and do an honest job analyzing the data. Doesn't mean their analysis is the only one, or correct, but that's not what you're saying. Essentially you're asserting if I want to know about economic matters, for example, then I should treat writings by economists and those with a track record of success and those who couldn't pass Econ 101 as equally important in my daily readings so I can "triangulate" the "truth."

Click to expand...

I am specifically discussing the media and how it relates to the political landscape, and not economics. Triangulating mathematic or scientific data is nothing like triangulating political truth. Triangulating political truth may require education in history and government, but it also requires some very human things like life experience, discretion, and understanding of emotions. Other than that, you seem to be getting what I am talking about. The media can easily assemble non relevant, yet true facts, to form whatever narrative they want to. In this case, a media story can be "fact checked" and all of the facts to be true, but the story could still be very misleading. There is almost always a bias behind a media story, but the most dangerous bias is one's own confirmation bias.