Recently, I've heard the media referred to as "liberal" from a number of conservative sources. I've also heard it referred to as the "devil white" media by members of the New Black Panthers. I have friends who are in the media who are liberal, conservative and I don't know what. So, it got me to thinking. We have so many liberal vs. conservative, republican vs. democrat, bush vs. gore, death penalty vs. anti-death penalty, pro-choice vs. pro-life, and on and on and on - arguments on this board. Has anyone ever thought that maybe we see what we want to see and that whatever happens is a result of perception rather than reality? Think of it this way. If we believe something to be true, does it make it true? What if you found out something about your choice for president that made it nearly impossible for you to vote for him? Say you found out he did something that you find utterly distasteful and disgusting. Would you still vote for him or be willing to change your opinion? How would you react if you met the nicest most genuine person you'd ever known on the elevator today and it turned out to be a newspaper columnist you absolutely loathe? Would she still be your friend? Would you date her? My point is that our perception of people, events, ideas and even facts (it's in how you read them, not what they are) shapes how we view the world. We see and hear what we want to see and hear until we decide to see or hear something else. Any ideas? ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
I did meet John McClain, and I still don't like him. But I'm not so set in my ways that I cannot change my opinion of someone. I may dislike a person based on my initial perception but change my mind when new information comes available. And just because I disagree with someone's views doesn't mean that I cannot like the person. I'd have to quit talking to my mother (and others) if I refused to talk to any liberals anymore. ------------------ HoustonSportsBoard.com
Great point Jeff. So many of us are afraid to question our own point(s) of view for fear of a mental meltdown (the "but my daddy said x" phenomena). I have personally tried to post threads that put my friends here, both conservative and liberal, in situations in which they can criticize their own beliefs. If a liberal can't play devil's advocate and argue a good conservative line and vice versa, then the argument suffers. We should all vow to learn the issues; that is, learn the best arguments from those that disagree with us. We shouldn't accept silly critical sound bytes from our heroes, because they probably do not do your opponent justice and correspondingly prove us the morons. Many of these issues are emotional... but if anyone starts to argue a point w/ a vested interest and feels like they're going to beg the question (do you know your conclusion beforehand?), then put a little disclaimer "biased" at the top of your post. It's just one step on the road to recovery. [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited September 04, 2000).]
Define what you mean by a "vested" interest. Quite frankly, I don't know in how many opinions I don't have a vested interest in. They're my opinions, and I'd like to think they're built on principles that I believe in. Talk about religion..I have a vested interest..I believe in God. Talk about abortion..I have a vested interest..I believe it's murder. etc, etc, etc. The point is...the very fact I have an opinion formed means I have at least some notion of a "vested" interest in the issue. That doesn't mean my opinion can't change over time (as it has time and time again.) But right now...if I'm arguing an issue..my perceptions will absolutely color my argument. Is that wrong?? Absolutely not!! As long as I don't trounce all over the dignity of other people...though I may trounce all over their views if I disagree with them. That's the very nature of these types of discussions. If you want to take them to another plane then ultimately you eliminate the need for these boards entirely or for any means of public expression of opinions. If our perceptions are worthless then who cares what you think..or what I think..or what Jeff thinks. Why even post your opinion?? The point is...they're still opinions..not facts. I may believe strongly in what I argue about..so much so that I tend to make it appear as fact..usually by putting my opinion in a definitive statement. But that's merely a form of expression. Basically what we're talking about here is arguing over how to argue. Ultimately I would hope that you would have some core principles in your life to guide your thoughts on these issues. Sorry for rambling. ------------------
I think what we're talking about goes beyond the issues of whether or not someone believes in God or is for or against abortion. The way I look at this debate is more along the lines of what opinions we form as to other policy issues. For example: Being a knee-jerk supply-sider, I heavily favor tax cuts in general, but am I so closed-minded about it that I just accept tax cuts as the solution without going to the trouble of pondering the effect of those tax cuts, etc. It's more things like that that I thought we were talking about. So often when we get into political debates, we pick a position and stick to it instead of looking to see what actually works without regard for which side of the aisle that idea came from. I know of a good many people who pick their opinions on issues based on what Rush Limbaugh or someone else says, and they have no real understanding of the issues or any real concept of if that is a good idea or not. I think it is the knee-jerkism that we have too much of in the world, and I kinda thought that was what Jeff was getting at, in a way. ------------------ HoustonSportsBoard.com
MadMax: I meant to merely allude to the philosophical fallacy of "begging the question" when I spoke about having a vested interest. That is, finding/interpreting the premises to match a predetermined conclusion that I had/have. An example would be for Gore to always appeal to public schools. If, like mrpaige pointed out, he's not debating the best possible method (i.e. vouchers, or whatever) then I don't think he's being fair to the nation's youth. That's an awesome post mrpaige. My biggest bias, I have to admit, is an anti-capitalist one. For some reason, I always see corporate America as an evil. I look at my shoes that fall apart after a couple of months, or the tenders that are no longer fresh after I get habituated to driving to the restaurant and I think that something has got to work better. It's as if I am constantly reminding myself that this is (seemingly) the only plausible system. I'll be convinced of that fact until planned obsolesence destroys another thing that I own. ------------------
It is all interpretation. For different reasons. First, language is rediculously limited. It is a finite structure intended to represent infinite emotions, thoughts, reactions, interpretations, etc. Countless times I have seen someone argue with a public figure of some kind (someone who wrote a book or essay, for example). The challenger can get into a frenzy over something they interpreted, and which is usually wrong. I have seen people not accept that they just misunderstood a theory, or conclusion - whatever. Also, our minds are muh stronger than the written word. It can be adapted to meet our mind's needs. If we want "October" to read "September", it will - without us ever knowing the truth. I have also seen people take a written aside (usuallly in a sarcastic or ridiculting tone) of an opinion or argument as being the actual meat of the person's viewpoint. If I say, "It can eqasily be argued that killing children under the age of 5 is good for the economy," argue how it can be done, but later point out that that is flawed logic, or whatever, that could be misinterpreted - read as "I support killing 5 year olds." I think that people too often do not know enough about what they argue, but will not admit it. We do cling to certain phrases or sentences as being all inclusive - a complete philosophy on one issue. That is the easy way out - knowledge is not easy, it requires more than a lot of people are willing to give. I, on the other hand, am above all of this and am guided completely by flawless logic, no matter the issue. ------------------ Talking to a dead hare about art
I can't believe you support the killing of five year-olds rimbaud. ------------------ HoustonSportsBoard.com
My whole point was that we are so fixed in certain beliefs, opinions, etc, that it is difficult to find our way out. I've found in my life that I have argued for or against something and then realized later that it didn't really fit my belief system. Winning the argument became more important than staying in line with who I was as a person. We have to have a willingness to not only admit our faults (actually, that is easy), but to actively seek a solution and a better way of doing things. We have to take an active role in our beliefs. The Dalai Lama once said that if science ever proved that reincarnation was false, Buddhists would have to change their beliefs. That is the definition of a living belief system. It adapts to our ideas as humans and our ideals as a society. Learning to change when it is painful but necessary to do so is the mark of true courage. The only thing that keeps us from those changes is fear - fear of the unknown. I'm not suggesting we alter every belief we have without contemplation. Actually, I am suggesting exactly the opposite. What I am suggesting is that it is not just a good idea, but in fact, in our best interests to constantly challenge our own ideas and beliefs and not be afraid to let go of old ideas that don't work any longer. It isn't just good for us, it is good for everyone. That is how we grow as people and as a society. We'll make mistakes, but growth only occurs through change and that is part of the challenge. Think of it this way (since Max brought up God). What if it could be proved beyond reproach that hell did not exist? Would Christians change their belief in it or would they cling to concepts that have carried them for hundreds of years? I'm not saying we can ever prove such things. It is like saying, "Imagine there's no heaven." There is no harm in imagining how life would be without any belief. It might not be better but we'll never know unless we dare to look. Even the forbidden fruit in Genesis was from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Notice that it wasn't the tree of good and evil, but the knowledge of it. That is a significant difference. I think that story is a metaphor for our destiny as humans. It is our job to look at everything and sort it out through contemplation and discussion. That is what makes boards like this so fun. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com [This message has been edited by Jeff (edited September 06, 2000).]
See, everyone thought Jeff meant one thing, when in reality... Anyway, You bring up good points - essential to life. We must always challeng ourselves, our own beleifs, more than we challenge others. Ours, after all, are much more important to our own lives. Additionally, they can be founded on rubbish, just as anyone else's. I honestly beleive that (taking your example only) if it was proven hell did not exist, people would still beleive in it. They would say that the researchers were biased, etc. There are people who argue the non-existance of dinosaurs, that it is all a fraud, despite the evidence. On the other end, if hell was proven to exist, there would be the same results from certain people who do not beleive in it. It takes a person with amazing power to allow his/her beleif system to be shattered and to deal with it. Most, I fear, would not be up to the task. ------------------ Talking to a dead hare about art
