• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'We hate the United States': Secessionists rally in Texas

danarhea said:
The periodic table of the elements: Opinion
Click to expand...
LOL! It certainly is by the standard folks in this thread want to use. Although if you had a link to someone else's opinion, I think they'd let it slide.
 
Glinda said:
Taylor, please give us your definition of "regular people." When you're done with that, please explain how you "know that they [liberals] don't like america as much as regular people." Finally, please identify the scientific apparatus used to verifiably rank how much someone loves their country.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Still waiting! :2wave:
 
Glinda said:
Still waiting! :2wave:
Click to expand...
I'll get right on that. First, I'd like you to post quotes where I made all three of those claims.

It's really up to you, but I wouldn't waste too much time looking.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
So now we are resorting to this, huh? :lol:
Click to expand...

Now you are just expressing an OPINION of Taylor resorting to "this" when in my OPINION he was really resorting to "that."

See how easy it is to avoid any substantive debate by resorting to obtuse semantics about whether one has expressed an opinion or a fact while obviously avoiding the point being made?

Here's my opinion; Democrats are dishonest. But alas, it can also be substantiated by many facts, but why would I have to post a bunch of links to those facts for my OPINION to have merit?

Here's another one; Obama is a liar. I can provide many facts to support this assertion, but why must I in order to make the comment I made?

I am always amused by the effort to resort to semantics so as to avoid the painful truths.

I can just as easily say that Dana is dishonest. It is an OPINION that can be supported by the facts but do I have to post a link in order to make the claim and have a valid argument?
 
Taylor said:
I'll get right on that. First, I'd like you to post quotes where I made all three of those claims.

It's really up to you, but I wouldn't waste too much time looking.
Click to expand...
Not finding them Glinda? :roll:
 
Glinda said:
Taylor, please give us your definition of "regular people." When you're done with that, please explain how you "know that they [liberals] don't like america as much as regular people." Finally, please identify the scientific apparatus used to verifiably rank how much someone loves their country.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Taylor said:
I'll get right on that. First, I'd like you to post quotes where I made all three of those claims.
Click to expand...

WTF? What "three claims?" :confused:

Here's your post from page 2:

Taylor said:
Is this the liberals? I know that they don't like america as much as regular people.
Click to expand...

So, I ask again:

Taylor, please give us your definition of "regular people." When you're done with that, please explain how you "know that they [liberals] don't like america as much as regular people." Finally, please identify the scientific apparatus you used to verifiably rank how much someone loves their country.

Thanks.
 
Taylor said:
Using your yardstick:

Gravity: Opinion
Newtonian Physics: Opinion
Evolution: Opinion
Big Bang: Opinion

The list goes on.
Click to expand...

Theories are backed by empirical data, though not proven. Some will always remain theory as they are impossible to replicate thus proving them.

Throw your computer off of your roof and explain why it falls. You can diminish Gravity as a theory, but it's not equal to saying I think Bush invaded Iraq for sand. Most science lends itself to empirical data.

I don't think you understand the difference between abstract concepts and the physical universe.
 
Glinda said:
WTF? What "three claims?" :confused:

Here's your post from page 2:
Click to expand...
You're right, maybe there was just two:

Glinda said:
So, I ask again:

Taylor, please give us your definition of "regular people." When you're done with that, please explain how you "know that they [liberals] don't like america as much as regular people." Finally, please identify the scientific apparatus you used to verifiably rank how much someone loves their country.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Please post where I claimed:
1) I "know that they [liberals] don't like america as much as regular people."
2) I used a scientific apparatus to verifiably rank how much someone loves their country (or where I said such a thing exists or should exist, or could exist)
 
Glinda said:
Dear, you're nowhere near as clever as you believe yourself to be. :roll:
Click to expand...
My being absolutely adorable certainly makes up for it :mrgreen:
 
Taylor said:
Please post where I claimed:
1) I "know that they [liberals] don't like america as much as regular people."
Click to expand...

Good god, woman. I just gave you the freakin' link.

Taylor said:
2) I used a scientific apparatus to verifiably rank how much someone loves their country (or where I said such a thing exists or should exist, or could exist)
Click to expand...

If you "KNOW that they [liberals] don't like america as much as regular people," you must have used some sort of measuring device, correct? What device did you use in order to come to your assertion that liberals "don't like america as much as regular people."

:roll:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Theories are backed by empirical data, though not proven.
Click to expand...
That's right, theories aren't "fact" but "opinion" -- to use the jargon in this thread.

independent_thinker2002 said:
Throw your computer off of your roof and explain why it falls. You can diminish Gravity as a theory, but it's not equal to saying I think Bush invaded Iraq for sand. Most science lends itself to empirical data.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to diminish theories. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to make sense of this "it's only an opinion" garbage that keeps getting tossed at me. As to your example above, both are "opinions," one just has a lot more credibility than the other because there's more evidence to back it up.

I tried to discuss evidence and competing theories earlier, but the "opinion police" and the "semantics police" wouldn't have it.

independent_thinker2002 said:
I don't think you understand the difference between abstract concepts and the physical universe.
Click to expand...
Evidence for this theory?:2razz:
 
Taylor said:
Exactly... theory = opinion
(using her/his yardstick)
Click to expand...

Theory != opinion. Theory requires that it has never been contradicted by any observation. Theory is a power word for scientists. A good theory is something that is praised. You have not even linked to any theories, simply hypothesis. Your study based on the Pew data offered a number of possible explanations. The Pew study was not even a hypothesis, it was a simple presentation of data.
 
Taylor said:
That's right, theories aren't "fact" but "opinion" -- to use the jargon in this thread.


I'm not trying to diminish theories. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to make sense of this "it's only an opinion" garbage that keeps getting tossed at me. As to your example above, both are "opinions," one just has a lot more credibility than the other because there's more evidence to back it up.

I tried to discuss evidence and competing theories earlier, but the "opinion police" and the "semantics police" wouldn't have it.


Evidence for this theory?:2razz:
Click to expand...

Hypothetical constructs don't have physical properties that you can see, count, or measure.

I can accurately predict how fast something will fall to the earth.
 
Crunch said:
When the water is right up to your chin, you think it's best to dig a little deeper?

So if I'm not happy in the way you think I should be, I'm not really happy even though I think I'm happy?

(here, use my shovel... it's called logic, maybe you can fill in that hole a bit)
Click to expand...

Nice strawman, I never said, nor implied that.

I am saying that just because you think that you are happy, does not necessarily mean that you are. What my view of happiness is is totally independent, and only relates when applied to me.

However it is entirely possible for someone to think they are happy all of their lives, and then suddenly wake up one day and the entire facade comes crumbling down because they were just rationalizing that they were happy to protect their psyche.

I am not claiming that you are unhappy, it is very likely that you are in fact very happy. I am just saying that thinking one is happy does not equal being happy. Although related, emotions and thoughts are not the same entity. They both influence one another, yes; however a mind is quite able to deceive the individual to protect that individual.

so using logic (which I have been) thought does not equal emotion. happiness is subjective, thus varies from individual to individual, and also within the same individual as a product of circumstance. Being subjective it is not readily defined, and not being readily definable makes applying further logic to an undefined, subjective (and immeasurable) concept futile.
 
Glinda said:
Good god, woman. I just gave you the freakin' link.



If you "KNOW that they [liberals] don't like america as much as regular people," you must have used some sort of measuring device, correct? What device did you use in order to come to your assertion that liberals "don't like america as much as regular people."
Click to expand...
If you have such a measuring device in mind Glinda, let me know, but I don't think they exist.

I see why your post didn't make sense. Your emphasis changed the meaning of the statement. I don't claim to know with certaintly and beyond all doubt, just like I've been saying all along.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Hypothetical constructs don't have physical properties that you can see, count, or measure.

I can accurately predict how fast something will fall to the earth.
Click to expand...
And? I don't see where you're going with this.
 
Taylor said:
And? I don't see where you're going with this.
Click to expand...

You will never ever be able to prove a hypothetical construct.

Theories have been, and will continue to be, proven.
 
Taylor said:
If you have such a measuring device in mind Glinda, let me know, but I don't think they exist.
Click to expand...

FINALLY. Jesus.

Ok. For the record, we now agree that:

1. There is no way to measure who loves America more, conservatives or liberals. Making a claim that one group or the other cares more about their country is nothing more than an OPINION.

2. There is no way to measure who is happier, conservatives or liberals. Making a claim that one group or the other is happier is nothing more than an OPINION.

Still waiting for the definition of "regular people."
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBObl4qMAB0"]YouTube - Pantera - Regular People (Conceit)[/ame]
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You will never ever be able to prove a hypothetical construct.

Theories have been, and will continue to be, proven.
Click to expand...
Theories aren't really "proven" they are good-enough explanations for what is observable. They are often disproven. Even scientific "laws" can be "disproven" (to an extent) for example, Newton's law of gravity is a damn good explanation, but it isn't "right." The more we learn, the greater the need to refine our theories.

That being said, of course I agree that you can't prove a hypothetical construct (hence the name).
 
Glinda said:
FINALLY. Jesus.
Click to expand...
If you were paying attention, I said as much wayyy back on page 13 when I explained to you the concept of hypothetical constructs.

1. There is no way to measure who loves America more, conservatives or liberals. Making a claim that one group or the other cares more about their country is nothing more than an OPINION.
Click to expand...
No we don't agree on this, we agree that your magic doo-hickey thingamabob doesn't exist. There are lots of ways to measure this, some more sophisticated than others. There are people who earn Ph.Ds studying such phenomena, who are able to make all sorts of predictions that aren't as reliable as those observed in the physical world, but are pretty reliable nonetheless.

We humans are a lot more complicated than gravitation and entropy.

2. There is no way to measure who is happier, conservatives or liberals. Making a claim that one group or the other is happier is nothing more than an OPINION.
Click to expand...
There are lots of ways to measure this. And, as I just got done discussing with it2002, all interpretations of data are OPINION (as you call it), there's just differing degrees of certainty.
 
Taylor said:
Theories aren't really "proven" they are good-enough explanations for what is observable. They are often disproven. Even scientific "laws" can be "disproven" (to an extent) for example, Newton's law of gravity is a damn good explanation, but it isn't "right." The more we learn, the greater the need to refine our theories.

That being said, of course I agree that you can't prove a hypothetical construct (hence the name).
Click to expand...

True, theories can be disproven. But many have been proven.
 
Originally Posted by Crunch
When the water is right up to your chin, you think it's best to dig a little deeper?

So if I'm not happy in the way you think I should be, I'm not really happy even though I think I'm happy?

(here, use my shovel... it's called logic, maybe you can fill in that hole a bit)
Click to expand...

marduc said:
Nice strawman, I never said, nor implied that.

I am saying that just because you think that you are happy, does not necessarily mean that you are. What my view of happiness is is totally independent, and only relates when applied to me.
Click to expand...

Case closed.
Crunch 1
Marduc 0
However it is entirely possible for someone to think they are happy all of their lives, and then suddenly wake up one day and the entire facade comes crumbling down because they were just rationalizing that they were happy to protect their psyche.

I am not claiming that you are unhappy, it is very likely that you are in fact very happy. I am just saying that thinking one is happy does not equal being happy. Although related, emotions and thoughts are not the same entity. They both influence one another, yes; however a mind is quite able to deceive the individual to protect that individual.

so using logic (which I have been) thought does not equal emotion. happiness is subjective, thus varies from individual to individual, and also within the same individual as a product of circumstance. Being subjective it is not readily defined, and not being readily definable makes applying further logic to an undefined, subjective (and immeasurable) concept futile.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom