President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining steam

[dragon890x]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

I thought I ended this discussion. Why are people still arguing over, wait...what are you guys even arguing about?

The obvious answers that come from science?
The obvious ignorance that comes from religion?
The obvious illiterates that come from this thread?

I think my dinner has finished cooking.

Hmm, I have a decent topic that has more significant importance than anything previously brought up in this thread.
Time to come to gather evidence, come to conclusions, and pick sides people!

How should I eat my dinner? (fancy bowl of rice with steak pieces)

Let's get this debate rolling, GO!

[SK8R4LY]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

conformation bias

conformation bias

Correct spelling: confirmation bias

[robertsona]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

also: bringing up "confirmation bias" in this case is fairly ridiculous in this case, sorry adlp

[gnr61]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

he might have actually meant 'conformation bias' which as far as i know is not an actual logical concept but fits connotatively

[adlp]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

for the record im not a huge fan of fox news

robertsona im just a sorry case myself what else can i say

[Reincarnate]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

he might have actually meant 'conformation bias' which as far as i know is not an actual logical concept but fits connotatively

"conformation bias" isn't really a thing... he probably meant "confirmation" and just used the wrong word.

"confirmation bias" is only acknowledging things that confirm your view and ignoring that which contradicts. Pretty much just twisting everything to fit your preconceived view.

[devonin]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

But but as a coining of a new phrase, Conformation bias, where you change your opinion to reflect the opinion of those around you, is actually pretty apropos to the situation.

[Reincarnate]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

I assumed "conformation bias" would be more of a "joining in on the circlejerk" type of thing

[A2P]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

a dues, I'm a political moderate

FITE ME

[gnr61]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

I assumed "conformation bias" would be more of a "joining in on the circlejerk" type of thing

semantically speaking i think a 'bias toward conformity' would be closer to what devonin said, but yeah i had the same impression as you when i first read it lol.

[Reincarnate]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

semantically speaking i think a 'bias toward conformity' would be closer to what devonin said, but yeah i had the same impression as you when i first read it lol.

I agree with dev in terms of how it'd be defined -- but I'm saying I think the "circlejerk" definition is how adlp was using it (especially given the context), XD

[Cavernio]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

Perhaps "ridicule" is the wrong word. What I really mean is to "dismiss" or "discredit," but without "ignoring." Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, but granting it too much validity perpetuates the notion that there are two sides to the debate when there aren't.

Discrediting is definintely going to help get our point across better than ridiculing, but you're still far more likely to get an individual bristling than listening if you do that. Listening isn't validation, and neither is refraining from saying something's dumb even when it is.

Attacking Creationist claims point-by-point doesn't work because what you'll get hit with, from time to time, is the Gish Gallop (needing to refute so many misconceptions that you haven't a chance in hell of doing it in a timely manner). It's easier to just explain how evolution works and how we don't need a Creator to explain any of it, much like we can explain how convection works and how we don't need Leprechauns to explain how water boils. I don't need to get into a point-by-point on Fucking Leprechaun Theory to show why it's nonsense.

Heh, Gish Gallop, I didn't know there was a term for it. I'm going to have to remember that.
Unfortunately explaining how we don't need a creator isn't going to work in the specific instance of that preacher I watched because he was discrediting evolution. If evolution is obviously flawed, (it isn't, but this was how this guy was presenting it) then another theory IS necessary. Intelligent design is the obvious opposite to random chance of life, even if you don't subscribe to any religion. In fact it could make logical people believe in God.

Many people refuse to change their position because they've invested so much time in their views (or are incapable of understanding the other position)... the cognitive dissonance is too strong. That's why you see so many God of the Gap type arguments: You move the goalposts to some area where there's no explicit answer and claim you're right because you haven't been disproved yet.

It's also why we see supply-side "economists" argue that we've never had a chance to see "trickle-down" work properly even though we have mounds of evidence to show to the contrary. You can always argue that "times were different" because of X, Y, and Z, even if those variables have little effect on what's actually being discussed. Of course, pointing that out results in a "Well, prove me wrong" type argument, which incorrectly flips the onus to the other person.

Fair enough.

The goal, though, isn't to convert the crazies. It's to emphasize something hard enough so that its prominence gets to the middle-crowd sufficiently early. Over time, the vocal, ignorant crowd fades out. We've seen it happen all the time throughout history.

I was very much considering individual, one on one talks or arguments. I haven't thought really about how to reach the most people to make the largest impact as awhole, but at a glance I can definitely see that being very against ideas could actually get more people to see your point of view when considering a larger audience.
I'm not sure I agree with the 'overtime' idea though; eventually and over time is a long time and what happens in between shouldn't be ignored. There's definitely swings towards ignorance and anti-human rights, and for instance and quite pertinently, one could easily argue that there is currently an on-going increase in fundamentalist sects of christianity in many part of the US. Overtime the economy will get itself into a proper balance of fairness without any sort of force too :-p

It's true that giving someone credence means they are more likely to listen to you, but those discussions always turn out the same way: "I acknowledge your stance and you surely acknowledge mine, but in the end, who's right? We'll just have to agree to disagree."

Happens more often than I would like, its true.

The key issue there being that in many cases there *aren't* two valid sides to the debate. There's the side that's demonstrably correct and/or has much more compelling/consistent evidence in its favor, and the side that's willfully ignorant/internally inconsistent/etc.

Regarding your final paragraph: Many preachers who criticize evolution use a variety of techniques. I could get into a long explanation of what they are, but in the end, they usually don't understand how evolution works and are attacking their own misconception of things (or they're just ignorant of what science DOES know how to explain).

Definitely. Unfortunately, being logical doesn't necessarily mean someone is knowledgeable.

[igotrhythm]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

Saw this on Facebook, thought it was topical.

[UserNameGoesHere]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

Anybody who didn't know this probably thinks the world is flat, was created in 7 days, and adulterers should be stoned.

Which is why it's even more important that marijuana be legalized!

(Sorry, couldn't help myself, lol )

[massflavour]

Re: President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining s

At some point every year we have a tradition here on FFR of tar and feathering madmatt. He announces the time for the ritual to begin by posting some asinine thread that reaffirms everyone's knowledge that yes, they are a better person than madmatt. Then we all get together and celebrate our collective intelligence by telling madmatt how wrong he is over the course of a week or two.

It's a cathartic, uplifting, and entertaining ritual that brings us all together.

i don't care if im being trolled

i love you

also, stone the adulterers and the witches