BS: actually.......

Subject: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 08:44 PM

.....you have a very good point there. i was wrong.

anyone have any examples of when they have changed their opinion as a result of something posted on this machine?

thought not. i certainly wouldn't.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 08:53 PM

Who would admit it???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ross Campbell
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 09:06 PM

Why would you stick to a stupid opinion like that if a better one came along? (not you Bobert, the other fella).

Ross

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 10:36 PM

I have... and I know specifically of one other who has. Different topics, but actual changes.

I do not need to type out the details.

It's true that many opinions never change, but sometimes just new information of a clearer viewpoint will make a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 10:39 PM

I distinctly remember once saying I'd been wrong about something. The person with whom I was arguing accused me of pretending to be stupid. I should see that as a weird sort of compliment, but the being false part bothered me more than the being stupid part.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 07:59 AM

I haven't been persuaded to change my opinion, but I have found that I was wrong to assume that everyone feels the same about what I considered to be 'universal truths'. For example, a current thread about the Jubilee has shown me that many people are not enthusiastic about the monarchy and don't welcome the celebrations. I humbly admit that it's ignorant and blinkered of me to think the whole nation has the same priorities and loyalties as myself! While some posters are a bit abusive and over-vehement, they still have their right to express themselves, and from their standpoint things look different.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 08:07 AM

I used to think that some trolls might have something to offer. But I have changed my mind on that.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 12:40 PM

I thought one time that I was wrong - but I was wrong...

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 02:20 PM

I have changed my opinion a number of times in this forum when I was shown reason and I have apologised when it was appropriate. Anyone who doesn't ain't someone I respect. Perhaps they see it as a sign of weakness? as a blow to their credibility or intelligence? I think it's just the opposite.

Of course, some who continue to spout "nastiness" from an inane viewpoint are just trolls and I try to ignore them if possible.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 02:23 PM

I once held the belief that Rapparee was a perfect human being; but his persuasive rhetoric quickly convinced me I had been sorely mistaken.


A

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 02:26 PM

nice one eliza! i too have found that jubilee discussion interesting and learned a fair amount (respect to the efforts of steve shaw and suibhne astray) i will always come to a topic from a left perspective, and occasionally ask a real question (why do people with relatively very little continue to support corrupt regimes that will do them no favours?sort of thing)and also find it hard to understand why folk don't see things (such as the inherent evil and violence in global capitalism) in broadly the same way as myself. sometimes i get cheap abuse for this and sometimes affirmation of my point of view -but never a real attempt (from the right wing contributors) to answer any points made. i'm not claiming to be innocent myself-but are we all just shouting with nobody listening? and wasting our time...which is precious- peace and love, pete

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 03:56 PM

pete... `...but are we all just shouting with nobody listening?`

It appears so sometimes but don`t stop shouting... or listening.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 04:22 PM

I will quite readily admit that I have changed my mind more than once on here. On occasions I have been convinced of the error of my ways but more often than not I have come to realise that those who seemed sensible and friendly at first can be manipulative, lying, knob-heads.

I suppose the valuable lesson is never take anyone on the internet at face value ;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 04:25 PM

lol We are a sorry lot.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 04:31 PM

I have had to retract and change my post more than once, as someone finds new data, or I find a better source.

In matters of opinion, I usually stick to my guns, but where facts are concerned, I acknowledge. I think most of us do that.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 04:33 PM

"most" being the operative word, Q.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 04:48 PM

Generally, I am interested in understanding issues from many perspectives, and am not offended by anyone (who posts nice) with a different viewpoint. I have learned from other folks perspectives and have broadened my views from some discussions. However, I doubt that I can say that many of my personal views on issues have made a major change from discussions on this site. In some cases, my participation on some discussions have encouraged me to think them out more and look into the topics (from outside sources) in more depth (that is a good thing).

I sometimes feel it is unfortunate and a loss to everyone here when a poster has something important to say/express - but, they blow it by being: overally sensitive and argumentative to those of a different viewpoint, are verbally abusive and disrespectful to other posters, or have a poor command of the writing or English, or express or take their case well beyond logical reason. A few times I have tried to lead a couple of posters away from that - as I have felt there is someting important to discuss. But, I don't recalll ever being successful at that.

Some topics are like "snake pits" with those with strong opinions waiting to pounce on the innocent who enters with different perspectives on the same topic. I have learned to avoid these, except when I "want to", and "am up to" having a bit of fun. And, yes, I have gained knowledge from those discussions.

Sometimes I have noted a "pecking order" of posters - with some who have been here awhile having developed a "posting circle" of the likeminded who tend to ignore those on the outside, or "the newbies". But, I guess that is not much different from other social aspects of life.

Would one expect middle aged people (common here) to make a total U turn on views that have taken years to solidify?

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: olddude
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 05:28 PM

I admit nothing ... I believe in the 5th Admendment

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: olddude
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 05:29 PM

even if I can't spell amendment Yah I still believe in it ... yea

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: ollaimh
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 09:43 PM

i have definately been reradicalized by mudcat. i used to think folkies were anti racist and would be offended by corruption, nazis and those who use their power to abuse others--especially children. in fact i doscovered that the old anglo bogorty against gaels is alive and well, that those who defend the raping children church are sympatic to nazis ans shameless, and that absolutely no one seems to care about the genocide against natives of north americaa. i usee to allow a few excuses for the raping children church for thsoe who alowed ex nazis in their group and used to shut up about open anti gaelic bigotry and let others defend me--they didn't. they don't and they won't.
i used to think we lived in a tolerant society, i don't think that anymore. i've definately changed my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: olddude
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 09:58 PM

Ollaimh
who said that, I think everyone here is as offended as you are against such things. There isn't a deeper darker prison they could be sent to .. And lots of us have gaels in our heritage. Do you have an example, I will be the first to help you kick ass if someone said otherwise. I don't think I ever read anything different but hey I don't read everything that is posted.

I am sorry that someone said something to you ...

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 02:19 AM

Bobert: "Who would admit it???"


PERFECT!!..Coming from you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 03:35 AM

Must admit, I have occasionally read an opposing view, seen merit I hadn't considered and revised my opinion. Not always from one end of a pendulum to the other, but there again, I don't seem capable of having a polarised view on any matter.

My problem is that as I see myself still as a chat room (or whatever we call these websites) novice, (I don't have Facebook etc) I have problems trying to visualise what people mean by a troll?

I accept that somebody who posts opinions with the intent of bullying others, spouting views for a reaction rather than to add to a debate etc could in some ways be called a troll, I have a sneaking suspicion that the term is also applied to somebody whose outlook in life is different to the accusers, or indeed just plain disagrees.

In the young earth creationist thread, I adopted a stance of pointing and laughing, mainly to show my concerns that such tosh is being inflicted on children's' education in some parts of the world, and that taking them seriously or trying to debate with a brick wall is at best self serving. In that, I must be a troll and make no apologies.

But what is a troll? Was there some definition that came around a few years ago and I was too busy having a life to know went on on line?

But

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 04:00 AM

I'm like you Ian, as I'm new to this and not quite sure what constitutes Trollism/abuse/insult or just strongly-held opinions. I still feel that a civilised person can express differing views without resorting to name-calling, obscene language or disparaging remarks. But I also believe that one should listen to and consider even such vituperative postings, because it's important to know what others think. Behind all the animosity lie sincerely-held views. If one refuses to mull them over, one is being ignorant and dismissive, and will learn nothing through life. And that's bigotry!

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 04:15 AM

True Eliza. But there comes a point where people are being irrational, and being involved in a small way in mental health services, I take care never to entertain irrationality as it is not helpful in the long run.

Having faith isn't irrational, we appear to be hard wired towards it. But I see no harm in dismissing views about young earth creationism, lunar landings in Arizona, having a camera inserted in your head by "the man" etc.

We won't learn from the silly assertions put forward in the YEC example I gave above. Indeed, such tosh can stop people from learning in life, as dismissing reality tends to do.

Of course, the trick is not to mistake possible viewpoints for irrational delusion. If any of us do, then we are only human after all.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 05:37 AM

I've had to change my opinions on a number of occasions and I could (but won't) list the posters who have precipitated changes. In general they have been those members who don't have a lot to say for themselves, but when they do speak I feel compelled to pay attention.

Those who shout and churn out inaccurate information, who espouse rumour rather than fact, and who present ill informed opinion as fact, (you know who you are) will never succeed in making me think about changing tack.

I would define a troll as someone who has no interest in the topic under discussion (even when he/she has initiated it), but seeks rather to subvert the thread, making him/herself the centre of attention.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: BrendanB
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 06:20 AM

As a newcomer to the delights of mudcat I cannot identify a time when a post has caused me to change my mind or review my opinion. However, It could happen in the future. One of the pleasures of mudcat is identifying posters who set out to outrage others. That may seem obtuse but I treasure a response made to one of my posts, a response in which the poster presented a treasure house of evasion, non sequitur and invective.
The truth is, it seems to me, that most of us are too set in our ways to readily give ground to an opposing point of view but I hope that I never give up the belief that I can learn from others if I keep listening.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 06:31 AM

ollaimh,

Count me in the group who is disgusted by child rape, regardless of the person or organization that enabled the abusers and let it happen. Also, be assured that I am concerned about the historic (and current) mistratment of Aboriginal peoples and others, such as blacks in many countries. I suspect most people in mudcat fall in this group, even though you may see it as otherwise.

Have you ever considered that those who used their power to physically abuse also used their powers to influence societies and citizens viewpoints (and prejudices that exist) that still exists today?   

IMO, an effective course to change viewpoints is to take every opportunity to open minds to your perspective through a positive approach, rather than a negative one (though, I understand it may be difficult to be positive about some really bad happenings). The negative approach (again IMO) tends to turn people and minds off from considering information that may enlighten them and change their perspective on an issue. If someone does not see or understand your point, or challenges the validity, personal attacks will close their minds to that poster, and their information.

There will always be those that deny any issue occured (regardless of the evidence) and also those who cannot free themselves from the prejudices that have been deeply seated in their minds by others. But, that does not mean that many people are not open to enlightenment.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 01:24 PM

Isn't it interesting that all the postings on this particular thread are to the point, intelligent and thoughtful?

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 06:23 PM

Probably due to the almost complete lack of Troll food Eliza. Of course, I might be wrong.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 06:22 AM

sometimes when i waste hours reading folk slagging each other off or indulging in pointless and only occasionally informed debate, i know i could be a better person doing more worthwhile things. maybe this self-hate is the reason why so much of the debate on t'interweb is mean-spirited bickering. because -while serving the machine- we are guilty, bored and not at our best. we should all just turn it off,go down the pub and talk to real people - i'm certain the same bickerers would get along much better after a couple of beers.
(health warning -the govt. recommends no more than half a pint or a small glass of wine a week (or whatever) -drink responsibly!)

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 04:14 PM

i feel there may be a bit to go with this topic-or have more frequent, long term contributors been round this block a few times already?

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 04:55 PM

""The Misconception: After you learn something new, you remember how you were once ignorant or wrong.

The Truth: You often look back on the things you've just learned and assume you knew them or believed them all along.""

""A recent study by researchers at Harvard shows as people grow older they tend to stick to old beliefs and find it difficult to accept conflicting information about topics they are already familiar with. The findings seem to suggest you can't teach an old dog new tricks.""

From the site below:






Hindsight Bias

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 06:20 PM

There are some who are "set in their ways", who participate in various chat lines (including Mudcat)- to hear (see) themselves, to spout "talking points" they have read elsewhere on issues (often in other chat rooms), or to selectively view discussions in a manner that reinforce their positions (often aka biases). These folks often show big attitude, a desire for superiority, a desire to convert, and stamp out contrary thought, and "real stubbornness". Question- If these people are not willing to allow flexibility in their mind and in a discussion, why should they expect others to do the same?

But, to counter this:

There are some topics where some are firm on their position (for example religion, or the lack of one) and are defensive holders of their opinions, content with the conclusion they have already drawn (true or not so true), and are unlikely to be dissuaded from a viewpoint outside of this safe harbour in a chatline discussion - except through extraordinary means that is not available through Mudcat, or by people participating.

While the "loud and frequent posting folks feel they have "won something" in an online debate - the win may be totally a delusion in their own mind - and with the like minded posters participating. The gain is zero.

Outside social reasons, why post? Well, there's may be one objective and interested person reading whose you might touch with your perspective on an issue. A good reason not to fall into the "none of it really matters, so why post" mindset. So, don't stop posting to contribute your perspective and experiences. Even if no one comments, there may be viewers considering the variouis perspectives on things and potentially influencing their thinking about something that matters.

I often ask questions of people agressively sharing perspectives and opinions as to why they hold the views. This tells me more than the overbearing stuff.

I'm content when I see that some other people merely understand what my position is on a topic and see the reasons why I hold that position. While it is also personally rewarding if I see my perspective ringing a tone with another poster, I have no need, or receive no gratification from "converting" to my way of thinking on anything. I also receive no good feelings from demononizing another persons convictions, thought processes, perspectives, or personal experiences.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 07:33 PM

It makes a big difference if—

after you post an opinion, someone then says, "Well, I'm afraid I can't agree with that, and here's why." Then they go on to explain their reasons and supply evidence for their viewpoint. You then have a basis for a give-and-take discussion. and someone may wind up changing his or her mind.

Or

Someone responds with, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!!!!!!!!! Where the hell did you pick up that wad of bullshit, you [loony liberal (or) right-wing bigoted, moronic ass-hole]??????????"

That's not liable to lend very well to a rational discussion.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 08:47 PM

""Then they go on to explain their reasons and supply evidence for their viewpoint""

Oh, the old "where is your evidence" question that some frequently "spew off" in the religious posts. IMO, that's a surefire discussion ender, with zero resullts for everyone.

When someone has a viewpoint, it does not mean they have scientific evidence for that viewpoint. It can be like asking what evidence do you have that blue (which you prefer) is better than yellow (which you may not like). IMO, that condensending type of questioning is like not-so-stealthly saying ""That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!!!!!!!!! Where the hell did you pick up that wad of bullshit""

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 08:57 PM

I keep changing my opinion about things and people. I really miss some of the people I used to disagree with like Ard and Martin Gibson and that geezer who reckoned he was in the IRA, or something like that Divis Sweeney and then spent ages arguing with Keith that he wasn't.

The music section was weird. I used to argue with Diana and Folkie dave - got so angry one time I stomped off. I still think they were wrong. And if I didn't express myself very well - its because the folk establishment aren't used to dialogue - and I was not used to debating a subject i cared passionately about and had had a lifetime of fuming inwardly at the rejection and highhandedness of folk hq.

I don't think I convinced anyone. But i did learn how entrenched the establishment views are, how conservative and frightened of original thought English people are, and how bloody nice these people are despite their intransigent and atrophied viewpoints.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 09:28 PM

I just view this place as a forum to talk 'folkish music' and other stuff. I have always felt 'folkies' were more informed on other subjects than many groups...after all, we SING about everything under the sun! Opinions is as opinions does..... but in the last 15-16 years, I have learned to express my own thoughts.,..and to be fairly careful about them, because there is likely someone reading who knows as much or more about the facts of the topic.....

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 10:23 PM

I'm talking about asking for evidence when it's appropriate to do so, Ed. When the person HAS evidence, they will usually gladly provide it (proving their point). But all too often, you wind up getting abuse, and on the basis of that, you have sufficient reason to dismiss what the person is asserting if it does not otherwise make sense or you have reason to believe that it simply isn't true.

Asking for evidence to back up an assertion is not out of line in most instances.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 10:33 PM

Don Firth: "Someone responds with, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!!!!!!!!! Where the hell did you pick up that wad of bullshit, you [loony liberal (or) right-wing bigoted, moronic ass-hole]??????????"
That's not liable to lend very well to a rational discussion."

ACTUALLY....What if it was true...and the looney person just would not let go of the looniness?...no matter how much evidence was provided him???

Just wondering.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 11:48 PM

GfS, there is NEVER any excuse for being outright rude and foul-mouthed. It says a great deal more about the person doing it than it does the person being addressed. And in and of itself, it is sufficient reason to simply dismiss the person making the offensive remarks as nothing more than a feckless boor.

Give it serious thought. A person who is civil merits more thought and attention than someone who is toilet-mouthed and insulting.

Tentative regards. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 12:09 AM

Don: "Tentative regards. . . ."

I'll take that into consideration....(wink)!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Amergin
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 02:13 AM

Well, I once thought I was a real nice guy...until some one demonstrated convincingly that I was but an asshole...it was a rather disillusioning experience, but well worth it. Now I don't have to pretend. I can just be my own self.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 03:09 AM

I knew a guy....he thought, "I used to be conceited....but now, I'm just perfect!"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 03:51 AM

EdT, I'm mulling over your list of the types of posters that come to Mudcat. It's very perceptive and IMO a good summary of the different characters and their motives for contributing. I suppose I fall into more than one of these categories. I do hold some pretty unshakeable tenets and admit that I've 'sounded off' about them. Also I foolishly like to think that as an elderly lady I have some experience of life so I must come across sometimes as arrogant and a know-all (retired teacher, sigh...) I'm sure I have never descended into rude abuse or name-calling, although I did once call one vituperative poster 'horrid'. And bad language is not my style. What I enjoy very much is reading others' opinions and getting a wider perspective. For example, I didn't realise quite how much 'the rich and privileged' are resented by some ordinary folk. I also like very much the views expressed by Americans and Canadians (and other nationalities) which to me are often a breath of fresh air. I've learned a great deal. Actually....Mudcat is absolutely excellent!

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 05:01 AM

well said Eliza!

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 06:46 AM

""Asking for evidence to back up an assertion is not out of line in most instances.""

I suspect it may not be out of line. However, if a question is asked, and the person already knows there is no answer available, what's the point and goal? It starts a zero game, with little possible gain for anyone.

In my example, "I prefer the colour blue over yellow"", to stimulate meaningful two - way discussion, an appropriate question may be, why do you feel that way (versus, where is your evidence that blue is better than yellow).

Why would one poster ask for such evidence (aka scientific evidence) if they know the other poster does not have the type of evidence that will satisfy their question? IMO, what stimulates that question is more revealing in these situations.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: BrendanB
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 07:54 AM

I take your point Ed, but you have to allow for context. Any statement relating to personal preference can hardly be supported by objective evidence and to demand such evidence would be, as you point out, pointless. However, a statement such as 'young earth creationists pose a significant threat to society', may or may not be true but should, I believe, not be allowed to go unchallenged because some may feel that YECs are generally harmless if self-deluding people and disapprove of singling them out for opprobrium. A good way to challenge such statements is to ask for evidence to support them. That way a reasonable, objective debate can take place (provided one ignores the spittle-flecked hatred spewed out by a small minority who see personal abuse as a valid debating point - obviously).

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 08:46 AM

""but you have to allow for context""

I believe I did allow for ""context"" in my posts.

What I was reacting to was the use of the word ""most"" in the statement: ""is not out of line in most instances"" What I believe you are referring to is a case where evidence may logically be present, not ""most"" cases, but a specific one where evidence may be available to the person being questioned.

Personally, I rarely seek "Truth, that requires complex scientific evidence" on internet chat areas. Agressively posting/questioning other posters to seek such "scientific truth" on a music one makes little sense to me, - and I would expect limited success from that (and there is likely evidence to the lack of success on this site).

But, as someone stated people are free to do that - I am questioning the motives, logic in doing so, and liklihood of results (I leave out posting courtesy, which is another matter).

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 09:00 AM

A wise boss of mine once said tomething to me, that has been valuable in my life and in personal discussions with friends and family.

It was related to getting the most out of communicating with clients.
He said, ""are we sending a message that we are "open for discussion", or are we sending a message that we are "taking someone on" - the difference matters to the results"".

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 02:07 PM

Some people (my old Uncle Percy was one) absolutely adore having a real argument (not discussion) and the deeper it descends into a row the more they like it. When he and his son got together, it nearly ended in blows, and afterwards they both felt tremendously refreshed. We can't expect everybody to prefer an earnest debate on civilised lines. I try (not always successfully) to tolerate others' styles, but find trolls just plain weird. For instance on another thread, a man is asking for support after his wife suffered a heart attack in the night. She's gravely ill and he's beside himself. A troll actually posted a taunting message complete with a coloured moving logo for him to see. Now that IS wicked and evil.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 02:08 PM

A typical conversation that takes place on some of these threads might begin with, "Senator Smith is a thief and a crook! Lobbyists own him lock, stock, and barrel! And not only that, he'll take any bribe that's offered him! And besides, he has sex with his secretary!"

With accusations like that, not only is it perfectly legitimate to ask for evidence for these assertions, it's practically mandatory. Those are pretty damned serious charges and they demand serious proof.

Especially when everything you've heard about Senator Smith indicates that he is a paragon of personal integrity, and works his butt off for the benefit of his constituency and for the country as a whole.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 02:52 PM

My opinion has been changed on at least two things. I used to think that right wing idiots were mercifully rare. And I used to think that most folkies were modest and unassuming until I heard some of the bragging here; and elsewhere by some of the members here.

Make that three - I have been (like Ollie but differently) re-radicalised.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 03:15 PM

""Senator Smith is a thief and a crook! Lobbyists own him lock, stock, and barrel! And not only that, he'll take any bribe that's offered him! And besides, he has sex with his secretary!""

I suspect many may expect this to have a good liklihood of being true of a person in a senior political position (regardless of the nation), and one may have to ask for evidence that it wasn't so.

Oh well?

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 03:47 PM

Evidence either way. But evidence--proof--nevertheless.

Otherwise, why should I accept it if everything I know about the man says that the accusation is a tissue of lies?

If the accuser can present irrefutable evidence of his charge, then I will change my mind about the Senator and work for/vote for someone else.

That's the way it works.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 04:12 PM

""(Evidence - Proof)... That's the way it works""


I suspect that is very true for some aspects of life - though I am still not convinced that it directly relates to most Mudcat discussions. So, I will resist the temptation to drift any farther off course with you on that direction.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 05:14 PM

Off course? I don't think so.

Matters of opinion or taste are in another ballpark. One can hardly insist on evidence for "I don't like lime Jell-o," or "I can't stand Wagnerian operas."

But matters of objective fact. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 05:21 PM

personally, I think the problem arises somewhere about the time that it is assumed because someone disagrees with you - ergo they are a villain.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 06:27 PM

Indeed. Either a villain, or colorfully accusing them of being stupid or ignorant, especially when the language tends toward gutter-talk.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 08:45 PM

Don firth: "Give it serious thought. A person who is civil merits more thought and attention than someone who is toilet-mouthed and insulting."


You might be right, there........................................Damn it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 08:59 PM

""Matters of opinion or taste""

And the point is, this makes up most of the topics on Mudcat BS that are being discussed.


Just a reality check, are we now participating in Pythons "Argument Clenic"? If so, I have not paid my two shilling entry charge.

;)

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 09:00 PM

Does anyone think that it was inevitable that a thread starting out with

.....you have a very good point there. i was wrong.

anyone have any examples of when they have changed their opinion as a result of something posted on this machine?

thought not. i certainly wouldn't.

which, to ME, is asking people to evaluate their OWN thought processes and opinions, should turn to be (based on who got involved in the discussion) about what OTHER people were doing wrong? No self-questioning or open-minded self-evaluation but just another opportunity to bitch about people they don't like?

Not saying this will turn into 'same shit, different day' but it's certainly headed in that direction, headed toward that back-and-forth jabbering that inspires us give up and abandon threads.

Make me admit I'm wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 09:35 PM

Sorry, last Guest was me.

Jeri
This post, and the original purpose, seemed to need some rejunivation to garner interest. I agree it has strayed, as most threads that last any time on BS often do.

Whether it survives a few days or not will likely depend on whether the floating posts resonates (as with other threads), rather than if it is true to the first post or not. Just my opinion, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 09:54 PM

And now a message from our sponsor, Jello - Vegans and Kosher folks beware.The bare facts on Jello

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 11:08 PM

Ed
Now you done it with bringing in Jello ... all civility has now gone out the window #$@#$%$#

don't make me come there !!!


LOL :-)

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 11:22 PM

you had to play the Jell-o card there Ed huh ...
you you you $%#$@!@#%

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Musket
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 06:00 AM

Makes me wonder how people can post in a section called Bullshit and then expect rational thoughtful debate...

I mentioned above that where such debate has occurred, (and to be fair it has) I have been known to change my views.

Bridge's contribution above, whilst par for the course and gave me a good giggle, also set me thinking. I like to think clever people are also rational, such thoughts are possibly hardwired in most of us. Yet I remain astonished at how having a silly chip on one's shoulder can make you come across all bitter & twisted, regardless of the subject.

Lighten up, you silly sausages....

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 07:59 AM

Since Jello is basically flavoured gelatin, I suspect a logical person could consider substituting a flavour of Jello for the unflavoured gelatin.

Good to snack on and to make you mellow-mallow when posting - and for changing your perspectives on life and the most important Mudcat BS issues (Disclaimer:I can't vouch for its evidentiary value:)



Homemade marshmellows

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 08:02 AM

I temporarily lost my cookies - the last Guest was the mallow Ed T.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 08:11 AM

Many of my opinions were changed by my late wife who started my progress from one-nation vaguely toryism towards the fairly radical views I now hold - and who I will add was routinely insulted and irrationally talked down to by one wannabee patriarchal poster on this forum - I particularly remember once hearing him say to her "Now you listen to me my girl" - which did not go down well.

She was also routinely insulted by an occasional female poster here - as a result I imagine of my late wife's considerably greater fanciability and musical talent.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 12:16 AM

"A recent study by researchers at Harvard shows as people grow older they tend to stick to old beliefs and find it difficult to accept conflicting information about topics they are already familiar with. The findings seem to suggest you can't teach an old dog new tricks." From a link by Ed T.

I don't find this to be true at all. The older I get - I'll be 77 this year- the more frequently I find myself questioning my conclusions.

One of them: After something happened, I used to wonder if I saw it coming and sometimes thought that, yes, perhaps I did, that there might have been a aura about the person that had clued me in.

But all I have to do to realize otherwise is to look around and acknowledge that I haven't the faintest idea of what is going to happen today or tomorrow or whenever. Except death. I am fairly convinced that we all someday must die.

Incidentally, I love learning new tricks.

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 03:57 AM

""I don't find this to be true at all. The older I get - I'll be 77 this year- the more frequently I find myself questioning my conclusions.""


So, based on that, are you questioning the conclusion you made above yet? :)

Subject: RE: BS: actually.......
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 12:19 PM

Ha, I say.