Racialy biased exit pole...opinions?

[muir]

Wow, are you so biased that you can't even see that what you just said here is absolutely wrong? The point of this thread, as I mentioned, was to see how people react to an apparent racially biased situation. Why don't you try considering the possibility that the all knowing all seeing muir could possibly be wrong. Oh wait, that would be against your fundamental personality. I understand, why you don't want to be wrong, but that doesn't make you any less wrong. And even if you weren't so biased that you couldn't see the actual point of this thread, and we go with what you thought the point of this thread was based only on the original post, you would still be wrong. Even with that information this topic is based on a professor using racially charged questions on an exit poll as part of research. That still doesn't in any way resemble a social crises like what your Hegelian dialectic would need to be applicable.

Now don't get your knickers in a twist...try and keep your focus

You are being manipulated one way and then the other by the engineers of perception and this racial exit poll is all part of that process; to understand how they operate better it would be worth getting to grips with hegels dialectics

 

[dogman6126]

Now don't get your knickers in a twist...try and keep your focus

You are being manipulated one way and then the other by the engineers of perception and this racial exit poll is all part of that process; to understand how they operate better it would be worth getting to grips with hegels dialectics

I did not mean to be harsh, that was misplaced aggression and as such I apologize. A roommate made me mad then. However that does not change my stance. It is still the fact that you are bringing your own interest to bare in a thread that is not about what you are saying. It is a perfect example of what I have tried to tell you about in the past. Your own interest clouding your judgment. You have your conspiracy threads where you can talk about all that stuff at your own leisure with out diverting other thread topics.

 

[muir]

I did not mean to be harsh, that was misplaced aggression and as such I apologize. A roommate made me mad then. However that does not change my stance. It is still the fact that you are bringing your own interest to bare in a thread that is not about what you are saying. It is a perfect example of what I have tried to tell you about in the past. Your own interest clouding your judgment. You have your conspiracy threads where you can talk about all that stuff at your own leisure with out diverting other thread topics.

And i'm saying that the poll is about polarising people and if you want to understand how polarisation is used to political effect by manipulative peopel then study hegels dialectics

 

[dogman6126]

And i'm saying that the poll is about polarising people and if you want to understand how polarisation is used to political effect by manipulative peopel then study hegels dialectics

And I am somewhat familiar with it already and a minor exit poll as a means to research would not have the polarizing effect to be even remotely effective. Notice that the same questions have been used before as far back as the 80s, and there was no polarization. It's illogical to conclude that such would be the case now.

 

[muir]

And I am somewhat familiar with it already and a minor exit poll as a means to research would not have the polarizing effect to be even remotely effective. Notice that the same questions have been used before as far back as the 80s, and there was no polarization. It's illogical to conclude that such would be the case now.

Of course it has an effect on people that's why you've heard about it

 

[dogman6126]

Of course it has an effect on people that's why you've heard about it

No, I've hard about it because I've studied it. And sure it had an effect, but not nearly as much of an effect necessary for Hegelian Dialectic to be successful.

 

[muir]

No, I've hard about it because I've studied it. And sure it had an effect, but not nearly as much of an effect necessary for Hegelian Dialectic to be successful.

Yeah you are studying it because it is something that has an effect on people

It had an effect on your teacher or the people who decided to include it in your course curriculem and it has an effect on the students like you so that you then share it and then it has an effect on people who engage with it online

All the while it is helping to reinforce divisions within society by provoking reactions form people that then reinforce their position on certain issues

 

[dogman6126]

Yeah you are studying it because it is something that has an effect on people

It had an effect on your teacher or the people who decided to include it in your course curriculem and it has an effect on the students like you so that you then share it and then it has an effect on people who engage with it online

All the while it is helping to reinforce divisions within society by provoking reactions form people that then reinforce their position on certain issues

that's an assumption muir. And an incorrect one. We are studying it because these questions have an interesting implication as a measure of modern racism. I went beyond that and considered the social effect. Your going even further and considering the social effect as applied to your conspiracy theory and how it might fit in to you big puzzle without a consideration of if it actually is a part or even if such a puzzle exists. Muir, patterns can exist and seem like there is some higher cause when really its just a pattern of nature. You know about the fibbinachi sequence? It shows up everywhere in nature. That doesn't mean that it is anything more. Sure its possible that the fibbinachi sequence represents beauty, but the reverse is that because it is everywhere we associate that with beautiful.

And I will say again, sure it has an effect to some extent as everything does, but it is not something that fits into the idea you mentioned earlier. This can be proven because the same questions have been used in the past, and while they did gather a level of interest, it then later died down and went away. Because its not really a conspiracy.

 

[muir]

that's an assumption muir. And an incorrect one. We are studying it because these questions have an interesting implication as a measure of modern racism. I went beyond that and considered the social effect. Your going even further and considering the social effect as applied to your conspiracy theory and how it might fit in to you big puzzle without a consideration of if it actually is a part or even if such a puzzle exists. Muir, patterns can exist and seem like there is some higher cause when really its just a pattern of nature. You know about the fibbinachi sequence? It shows up everywhere in nature. That doesn't mean that it is anything more. Sure its possible that the fibbinachi sequence represents beauty, but the reverse is that because it is everywhere we associate that with beautiful.

And I will say again, sure it has an effect to some extent as everything does, but it is not something that fits into the idea you mentioned earlier. This can be proven because the same questions have been used in the past, and while they did gather a level of interest, it then later died down and went away. Because its not really a conspiracy.

Hegelian dialectics can operate at all levels

Also the very material you are asked to analyse objectively as students might be presented to you as part of a hegelian dialectic which you are not yet conscoualy aware of

 

[dogman6126]

Hegelian dialectics can operate at all levels

Also the very material you are asked to analyse objectively as students might be presented to you as part of a hegelian dialectic which you are not yet conscoualy aware of

ok sure, it might be. It also might be that the aliens are beaming signals into our brains to make us suspicious of our government so we overthrow them that way when the aliens invade they will have an easier time of it.

Muir, just because it could doesn't mean it is. What you just suggested is so extremely unlikely because it is certainly a fair and valid and necessary educational point in social psychology. We only studied the 2002 example as it applied to modern racism. I read for myself a bit about the 1980's study when Dave fallen mentioned it. And I myself considered its application in social response when I noticed the 2014 exit poll. It is highly illogical of you to conclude that what my teachers taught me was some part of the higher plan to have an effect. Maybe you struggle with the concept of causation? Because I learned of it only two days before I became aware of the exit poll? That does not mean they are related. That is a bias caused by the way the brain is wired and can be dismissed with a simple consideration. The fact of chance. My course work was planned ahead at the beginning of the semester. This exit poll happened a while ago. I learned of the exit poll on facebook then researched it. Even thought the class and the becoming aware were close events in time does not mean that they are related to each other. That is a fact of chance.

Now while it is true that Hegelian dialectics can operate at many different levels, your grasping at straws at this point. What you where implying is that the example of this exit poll was designed as a means to insight a kind of interest to increase racial tensions to create social disorder or at least dissonance. That would never come about with something so small scale. It might give rise to public interest on that local level and perhaps a bit further because of the internet, but past experience tells us that when people learn the truth of the fact of research that people will calm down. Even if they don't learn the truth of the research, they loose interest. Again, this is only on the small scale.

 

[muir]

ok sure, it might be. It also might be that the aliens are beaming signals into our brains to make us suspicious of our government so we overthrow them that way when the aliens invade they will have an easier time of it.

I'll make a conspiracy theorist of you yet!

However you are not thinking very logically because if the aliens wanted to manipulate humanity they would just beam signals directly into the minds of the government as they already represent an off the shelf control apparatus

Muir, just because it could doesn't mean it is. What you just suggested is so extremely unlikely because it is certainly a fair and valid and necessary educational point in social psychology. We only studied the 2002 example as it applied to modern racism. I read for myself a bit about the 1980's study when Dave fallen mentioned it. And I myself considered its application in social response when I noticed the 2014 exit poll. It is highly illogical of you to conclude that what my teachers taught me was some part of the higher plan to have an effect. Maybe you struggle with the concept of causation? Because I learned of it only two days before I became aware of the exit poll? That does not mean they are related.

Now you are failing to realise quite how far reaching cause and effect can be

A person doesn't need to be a conscious participant to be an agent of the conspiracy they could just be doing what they believe is the right thing to be doing because of their own societal programming

That is a bias caused by the way the brain is wired and can be dismissed with a simple consideration. The fact of chance. My course work was planned ahead at the beginning of the semester.

You are currently being programmed to think a certain way that is going to lock you in the left brain thereby depriving you of other faculties that would enable you a more farreaching insight into the world around you

This exit poll happened a while ago. I learned of the exit poll on facebook then researched it. Even thought the class and the becoming aware were close events in time does not mean that they are related to each other. That is a fact of chance.

Now while it is true that Hegelian dialectics can operate at many different levels, your grasping at straws at this point. What you where implying is that the example of this exit poll was designed as a means to insight a kind of interest to increase racial tensions to create social disorder or at least dissonance. That would never come about with something so small scale. It might give rise to public interest on that local level and perhaps a bit further because of the internet, but past experience tells us that when people learn the truth of the fact of research that people will calm down. Even if they don't learn the truth of the research, they loose interest. Again, this is only on the small scale.

Not necessarily

For example a lot of human behvaiour is mimicry so sometimes people end up mimicing the behaviours of the conspirators

But the questions in the poll are so pointed it implies a level of cogniscense behind the design; if you do not understand what i say here then you will always be open to being manipulated by people who can see what i can see but who lack any conscience; if you don't understand what i mean...that's a blindspot that certain people will look to exploit (unfortunately some people have a gift for it)

 

[dogman6126]

I'll make a conspiracy theorist of you yet!

However you are not thinking very logically because if the aliens wanted to manipulate humanity they would just beam signals directly into the minds of the government as they already represent an off the shelf control apparatus

I'm going to assume that your joking here, lol. Maybe the aliens don't want control, they want destruction so that can colonize earth. So that's why they want us to bring down our government #conspiracy #illogical #crazy

Now you are failing to realise quite how far reaching cause and effect can be

A person doesn't need to be a conscious participant to be an agent of the conspiracy they could just be doing what they believe is the right thing to be doing because of their own societal programming

Oh believe me, I don't fail to understand the extent to which cause and effect can have. I'm literally writing a term paper about causal determinism for phys/phil 419 as I'm debating with you. The problem in your logic is to associate an intended relation between two things that just happened to be temporally linked. Just because if I dropped my cell phone right now on the floor, and in an hour there's a dark spot in that same spot on the floor, does not mean the phone caused the dark spot. It's more likely that I also set a glass of water in the same place and accidently spilled it there (hopefully after having moved my phone, lol). And again you having trouble with can be and is. There is the objective cause and effect and then there is our perceived cause and effect. Our perceived cause and effect aren't necessarily true.

You are currently being programmed to think a certain way that is going to loc you in the left brain thereby depriving you of other faculties that would enable you a more farreaching insight into the world around you

You forgot to talk about the photons in my tea clearing my 4th chakra giving me access to the eternal light. Dude common, everything you just said there is literally word salad. It's all fine sounding words put together that doesn't mean anything at all. It's like you used this thing: http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

Not necessarily

For example a lot of human behvaiour is mimicry so sometimes people end up mimicing the behaviours of the conspirators

But the questions in the poll are so pointed it implies a level of cogniscense behind the design; if you do not udnerstand what i say here then you will always be open to being manipulated by people who can see what i can see but who lack any conscience

Of course the questions where designed. By the researcher. It has been done in the past. Are you going to say they where all part of your grand design? It's illogical because it would be unnecessary and ineffective, not to mention unlikely. Even if you where right about there being an all encompassing conspiracy going on, there are better ways to bring about the result you are talking about than just this small scale exit poll research.

 

[muir]

I'm going to assume that your joking here, lol. Maybe the aliens don't want control, they want destruction so that can colonize earth. So that's why they want us to bring down our government #conspiracy #illogical #crazy

You're being illogical again

If they were that powerful and they could just destroy us and take the earth

But if instead they were feeding off us then they would need to farm us and regulate us...that would make much more sense

Oh believe me, I don't fail to understand the extent to which cause and effect can have. I'm literally writing a term paper about causal determinism for phys/phil 419 as I'm debating with you. The problem in your logic is to associate an intended relation between two things that just happened to be temporally linked.

No i've just said to you that there are many different connections between things...some are direct and some are indirect but if they are all embedded in an underlying substrata of causal intent then they are related

Just because if I dropped my cell phone right now on the floor, and in an hour there's a dark spot in that same spot on the floor, does not mean the phone caused the dark spot. It's more likely that I also set a glass of water in the same place and accidently spilled it there (hopefully after having moved my phone, lol). And again you having trouble with can be and is. There is the objective cause and effect and then there is our perceived cause and effect. Our perceived cause and effect aren't necessarily true.

You're tying yourself in knots

Lets just wait and see

As the police state asserts itself more and more i'll remind you of this conversation and you can then with hindsight learn the error of your ways

You forgot to talk about the photons in my tea clearing my 4th chakra giving me access to the eternal light. Dude common, everything you just said there is literally word salad. It's all fine sounding words put together that doesn't mean anything at all. It's like you used this thing: http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

I could equally say the same about your left brain garbage that can't even discearn whats going on in the world right in front of it!

Of course the questions where designed. By the researcher. It has been done in the past. Are you going to say they where all part of your grand design? It's illogical because it would be unnecessary and ineffective, not to mention unlikely. Even if you where right about there being an all encompassing conspiracy going on, there are better ways to bring about the result you are talking about than just this small scale exit poll research.

What i'm saying is that the actions of the researchers are themselves the result either directly or indirectly of wider forces acting on our society

The questions are leading questions designed to dig out pre-programmed prejudices in order for the researcher to

A. elicit a response in the reader and
B. allow the programmer to get a feel for what prejudices are out there

Also i'd like some credit when you get marks for these points in your assignment

 

[dogman6126]

You're being illogical again

If they were that powerful and they could just destroy us and take the earth

But if instead they were feeding of us then they would need to farm us and regulate us...that would make much more sense

It was a joke after all, the point was to be illogical. The whole consideration is fraught with issues and assumptions.

No i've just said to you that there are many different connections between things...some are direct and some are indirect but if they are all embedded in an underlying substrata of causal intent then they are related

Notice where you said if here. That is your fundamental assumption and it is two part. First that there is an underlying causal intent and that this case takes part in that underlying causal intent. The relevant assumption here is the second one. You come in with the assumption that it is a part of the conspiracy, but the thing is you can rationalize almost any situation as being a part of the conspiracy. This is the error.
Consider this. Let's assume there is a conspiracy of causal intent. Now we must accept that there are events that are caused by the conspiracy, and there are events that are not caused by the conspiracy. This is what you would see as the objective truth. Now you have a set of situation that you are considering (real world situation) and you don't know which are and which are not a part of the conspiracy. Now, what I've seen you do, like in this case, is you will say that it could very well be that because of this conspiracy, this is the intent and this is what is going on. The problem is that every situation that you don't know the cause, the intent, or even all of the facts you have the opportunity to perceive the situation in a way that is compatible with your view. This is called rationalization to fit in your theory. and you are smart enough to do that. I must also accept the case of events that you cannot rationalize as being part of the conspiracy (like maybe the orbit of the moon or something like that). So now we have events that are a part of the conspiracy, events that aren't a part of the conspiracy, and you have events that you can rationalize as part of the conspiracy and events you can't rationalize as part of the conspiracy. So now we can consider the last two as fitting into the first to which is to say there are events that are a part of the conspiracy that you can rationalize as part of the conspiracy (what you would consider 9/11 or the Iraq war etc.) and events that are a part of the conspiracy that you cannot rationalize as part of the conspiracy (hidden things that you might have missed). Then there are events that are not a part of the conspiracy that you cannot rationalize as part of the conspiracy (the moon effecting the tides) and events that aren't a part of the conspiracy that you can rationalize as part of the conspiracy (per my opinion, I will limit to this topic, the example of this exit poll). Now the problem is you are human and you are smart. Because you are human, you are subject to a large number of biases. Also, you are very driven about these conspiracies. Because you are smart, you can rationalize the events very effectively, and you could even rationalize to yourself so that you don't notice the biases. Because of this, the likelihood of the four groups changes. For those events that are a part of the conspiracy and you can rationalize as part of the conspiracy, there's really no consideration. For those events that are a part of the conspiracy that you can't rationalize, this group becomes drastically reduced because of your drive and intelligence. This is the good side of this behavior and the side that you see in yourself. However, for those events that are not a part of the conspiracy and that you can rationalize as part of the conspiracy, you will consider as part of the conspiracy because your bias doesn't mean you really check for the truth in these cases, and your drive and intelligence will also mean that this group is the majority of the set of events that are not a part of the conspiracy. For those events that are not a part of the conspiracy and that you cannot rationalize as part of the conspiracy, this set will be very small as I mentioned in the previous sentence, because of your drive and biases and intelligence. However I expect you will have a consideration for some situations that you think are certainly not a part of the conspiracy to rationalize to yourself that you are not biased in such a way as to mistake events that are not a part of the conspiracy as being part of the conspiracy. Notice though that this is a rationalization after the fact. You've already decided what is or is not part of the conspiracy, but you cling to that which isn't to say to convince yourself that you are not biased.
The conclusion from this is because of your combination of bias and intelligence and drive, you will see what parts are of the conspiracy, but you will also consider some events that objectively are NOT part of the conspiracy to be part of the conspiracy simply because of your ability to rationalize it as such. This is a fundamental attribution error.
You ask far to often "could this be a part of the conspiracy" without asking "could this not be a part of the conspiracy". You see, I have shown you that you can rationalize so many events as not being part of the conspiracy, while you rationalize it as being part of the conspiracy. What you need to figure out is what is objectively part of the conspiracy, and what is not. Not just what could be part of the conspiracy.

And all of that doesn't even get into questioning the initial assumption of there even being a conspiracy, but I can't logically prove or disprove it as it is a hypothesis that is untestable.

You're tying yourself in knots

Lets just wait and see

As the police state assert itself more and more i'll remind you of this conversation and you can then with hindsight learn the error of your ways

Even if your predictions comes to be, that does not prove that in this case (as an example) it was a part of the conspiracy. That would be a logical fallacy.

I could equally say the same about your left brain garbage that can't even discearn whats going on in the world right in front of it!

I never said anything about left brain garbage, lol. your the one that brought that up. What I'm saying is certainly not word salad, as I'm sure others on this forum would agree with me. At least to that respect. Maybe I'm missing some point in logic, but what I've said is certainly not completely made up.

What i'm saying is that the actions of the researchers are themselves the result either directly or indirectly of wider forces acting on our society

The questions are leading questions designed to dig out pre-programmed prejudices in order for the researcher to

A. elicit a response in the reader and
B. allow the programmer to get a feel for what prejudices are out there

Also i'd like some credit when you get marks for these points in your assignment

And that's where you're at least partially wrong. The prejudices are not programed to say per society, they are a fundamental limitation of our brain. Your right there are fundamental triggers in the brain that these questions address, but they have been there far longer than any society. Therefore they could not have been programmed by society.

And why would I use what you said in my paper? You are literally incorrect about the relation of temporally linked objects and causation. I want to get a good grade, not an F, lol.

 

[muir]

It was a joke after all, the point was to be illogical. The whole consideration is fraught with issues and assumptions.



Notice where you said if here. That is your fundamental assumption and it is two part. First that there is an underlying causal intent and that this case takes part in that underlying causal intent. The relevant assumption here is the second one. You come in with the assumption that it is a part of the conspiracy, but the thing is you can rationalize almost any situation as being a part of the conspiracy. This is the error.
Consider this. Let's assume there is a conspiracy of causal intent. Now we must accept that there are events that are caused by the conspiracy, and there are events that are not caused by the conspiracy. This is what you would see as the objective truth. Now you have a set of situation that you are considering (real world situation) and you don't know which are and which are not a part of the conspiracy. Now, what I've seen you do, like in this case, is you will say that it could very well be that because of this conspiracy, this is the intent and this is what is going on. The problem is that every situation that you don't know the cause, the intent, or even all of the facts you have the opportunity to perceive the situation in a way that is compatible with your view. This is called rationalization to fit in your theory. and you are smart enough to do that. I must also accept the case of events that you cannot rationalize as being part of the conspiracy (like maybe the orbit of the moon or something like that). So now we have events that are a part of the conspiracy, events that aren't a part of the conspiracy, and you have events that you can rationalize as part of the conspiracy and events you can't rationalize as part of the conspiracy. So now we can consider the last two as fitting into the first to which is to say there are events that are a part of the conspiracy that you can rationalize as part of the conspiracy (what you would consider 9/11 or the Iraq war etc.) and events that are a part of the conspiracy that you cannot rationalize as part of the conspiracy (hidden things that you might have missed). Then there are events that are not a part of the conspiracy that you cannot rationalize as part of the conspiracy (the moon effecting the tides) and events that aren't a part of the conspiracy that you can rationalize as part of the conspiracy (per my opinion, I will limit to this topic, the example of this exit poll). Now the problem is you are human and you are smart. Because you are human, you are subject to a large number of biases. Also, you are very driven about these conspiracies. Because you are smart, you can rationalize the events very effectively, and you could even rationalize to yourself so that you don't notice the biases. Because of this, the likelihood of the four groups changes. For those events that are a part of the conspiracy and you can rationalize as part of the conspiracy, there's really no consideration. For those events that are a part of the conspiracy that you can't rationalize, this group becomes drastically reduced because of your drive and intelligence. This is the good side of this behavior and the side that you see in yourself. However, for those events that are not a part of the conspiracy and that you can rationalize as part of the conspiracy, you will consider as part of the conspiracy because your bias doesn't mean you really check for the truth in these cases, and your drive and intelligence will also mean that this group is the majority of the set of events that are not a part of the conspiracy. For those events that are not a part of the conspiracy and that you cannot rationalize as part of the conspiracy, this set will be very small as I mentioned in the previous sentence, because of your drive and biases and intelligence. However I expect you will have a consideration for some situations that you think are certainly not a part of the conspiracy to rationalize to yourself that you are not biased in such a way as to mistake events that are not a part of the conspiracy as being part of the conspiracy. Notice though that this is a rationalization after the fact. You've already decided what is or is not part of the conspiracy, but you cling to that which isn't to say to convince yourself that you are not biased.
The conclusion from this is because of your combination of bias and intelligence and drive, you will see what parts are of the conspiracy, but you will also consider some events that objectively are NOT part of the conspiracy to be part of the conspiracy simply because of your ability to rationalize it as such. This is a fundamental attribution error.
You ask far to often "could this be a part of the conspiracy" without asking "could this not be a part of the conspiracy". You see, I have shown you that you can rationalize so many events as not being part of the conspiracy, while you rationalize it as being part of the conspiracy. What you need to figure out is what is objectively part of the conspiracy, and what is not. Not just what could be part of the conspiracy.

And all of that doesn't even get into questioning the initial assumption of there even being a conspiracy, but I can't logically prove or disprove it as it is a hypothesis that is untestable.



Even if your predictions comes to be, that does not prove that in this case (as an example) it was a part of the conspiracy. That would be a logical fallacy.




I never said anything about left brain garbage, lol. your the one that brought that up. What I'm saying is certainly not word salad, as I'm sure others on this forum would agree with me. At least to that respect. Maybe I'm missing some point in logic, but what I've said is certainly not completely made up.




And that's where you're at least partially wrong. The prejudices are not programed to say per society, they are a fundamental limitation of our brain. Your right there are fundamental triggers in the brain that these questions address, but they have been there far longer than any society. Therefore they could not have been programmed by society.

And why would I use what you said in my paper? You are literally incorrect about the relation of temporally linked objects and causation. I want to get a good grade, not an F, lol.

Give it time, i'm going to remind you of this conversation

 

[dogman6126]

Give it time, i'm going to remind you of this conversation

Ok this makes me think you didn't read what I said or if you did then you didn't understand it. You should notice first that I made no prediction, and I also explained why even if your prediction turned out true then that does not necessarily mean that you where right in the specific case. I even pointed out where one of your fundamental logical fallacies are and explained why its wrong and you glossed over it. Unless you can come up with some argument against that long paragraph, then you might as well be assenting that I am right, lol.

 

[muir]

Ok this makes me think you didn't read what I said or if you did then you didn't understand it. You should notice first that I made no prediction, and I also explained why even if your prediction turned out true then that does not necessarily mean that you where right in the specific case. I even pointed out where one of your fundamental logical fallacies are and explained why its wrong and you glossed over it. Unless you can come up with some argument against that long paragraph, then you might as well be assenting that I am right, lol.

lol

Here's the thing.....instead of discussing a real world problem (the militarisation of the police) which i'm trying to flag up here you have instead created a strawman where you are trying to argue through the langauge of logical fallacies that it is not possible for someone to look at what is happening in front of them and then extrapolate that into the future to predict what is going to happen

Except people do it all the time. A person can catch a ball because they are able to predict where that ball is going to go

Well i'm telling you there are a bunch of signs pointing to the militarisation of the police and also to why they might be doing that

Such discussions belong on the street where real life happens whilst philosophical musings about whether or not it is possible to acurately predict the future belong in the classroom

We've had a few debates now for example one where i said the vaccines were causing autism and contained mercury derivatives in them; you disagreed and then a CDC whistleblower revealed that the vaccines were indeed linked to autism

Then we had a debate about flouride in the drinking water where i said it was a toxic byproduct of industry and you argued it wasn't harmful and then recently the lancet journal has published a study saying that fluoride is toxic

Now we're having a debate where i'm telling you that the police are militarising and you are saying they are not

seriously?

 

[dogman6126]

lol

Here's the thing.....instead of discussing a real world problem (the militarisation of the police) which i'm trying to flag up here you have instead created a strawman where you are trying to argue through the langauge of logical fallacies that it is not possible for someone to look at what is happening in front of them and then extrapolate that into the future to predict what is going to happen

That is not at all what I'm arguing for. I'm arguing that your biases and assumptions make much of what your saying unreliable in so far as logical conclusions. It seems like you rely on intuition, then try to justify with logic or proof, which your really bad at. That's different than me since I form an impression from intuition, then I check to see if it is logically reasonable. That's why people who would like a logical reason to reach conclusions would disagree with you. You very well would end up correct some of the time because intuition is an incredible tool. Your problem is you just think its always right.

Except people do it all the time. A person can catch a ball because they are able to predict where that ball is going to go

That's just the natural understanding of our world by living in our world which we explain by physics. This is certainly something different because this is an automatic behavior, not really a cognitive one.

Well i'm telling you there are a bunch of signs pointing to the militarisation of the police and also to why they might be doing that

Such discussions belong on the street where real life happens whilst philosophical musings about whether or not it is possible to acurately predict the future belong in the classroom

These philosophical musings you refer to aren't about if its possible to predict the future. That's easy to disprove. I'm talking about why taking your "predictions" at face value would be a very very bad idea. Per your ideas, it might seem reasonable to get a gun and go assassinate every rich person. Philosophically that would be highly unethical.

We've had a few debates now for example one where i said the vaccines were causing autism and contained mercury derivatives in them; you disagreed and then a CDC whistleblower revealed that the vaccines were indeed linked to autism

Hey this is a perfect example of what I predicted about you! That's great you just proved me right .
You see, that is absolutely not what happened. But you rationalized it in such a way to make yourself think you where right all along. You see, you argued that the MMR vaccine caused autism because of the results of the wakefield studies. Furthermore you tried to say other vaccines can cause autism because of the organomercurials. However, I and others showed you that wakefield was an unethical scientist, and that the organomercurial (the name escapes me now) hasn't been used for a long time in anything but influenza vaccine. That's when you said that the influenza vaccine causes autism which also isn't true because the flu vaccine isn't even given to those at risk, meaning young children. You actually got to the point that you said you where sure that vaccines where a method of poisoning the public because of what bill gates said. Even thought all the science doesn't point in that direction and that wasn't even what bill gates was talking about.
Now the CDC "expert" your referencing did not come out after that discussion. In fact that came out a long while ago, but still does not prove that they are related. They said that more research is needed to be certain that it is not caused. You only saw what you wanted to see. And here you are, saying now that after our debate that the expert came out and confirmed you right. That's simply not what happened. This is your rationalization after the fact, exactly as I predicted. This proves your irrationality, lol.

Then we had a debate about flouride in the drinking water where i said it was a toxic byproduct of industry and you argued it wasn't harmful and then recently the lancet journal has published a study saying that fluoride is toxic

Studies are published often in either direction. Notice that this is a study, not proof. Its evidence that must be considered, not taken at face value as you seem very willing to do as a way to again rationalize the case so you can say that you where right. In truth I'm really more on the fence on the fluoride debate. I wasn't then, but I do think that better research should be undertaken.

Now we're having a debate where i'm telling you that the police are militarising and you are saying they are not

seriously?

And here you are seeing only what you want to see. I have at no point here said that the police are not militarizing. In fact, I agree that the police are becoming more outfitted with advanced equipment and some of that was from the military. Important to note that not all of it was, but nonetheless true that the police have updated quantity and quality of equipment.
You aren't even seeing my arguments for what they really are. All you see is what you want to see because if your confirmation bias.

 

[muir]

That is not at all what I'm arguing for. I'm arguing that your biases and assumptions make much of what your saying unreliable in so far as logical conclusions. It seems like you rely on intuition, then try to justify with logic or proof, which your really bad at. That's different than me since I form an impression from intuition, then I check to see if it is logically reasonable. That's why people who would like a logical reason to reach conclusions would disagree with you. You very well would end up correct some of the time because intuition is an incredible tool. Your problem is you just think its always right.

That's just the natural understanding of our world by living in our world which we explain by physics. This is certainly something different because this is an automatic behavior, not really a cognitive one.


These philosophical musings you refer to aren't about if its possible to predict the future. That's easy to disprove. I'm talking about why taking your "predictions" at face value would be a very very bad idea. Per your ideas, it might seem reasonable to get a gun and go assassinate every rich person. Philosophically that would be highly unethical.

Hey this is a perfect example of what I predicted about you! That's great you just proved me right .
You see, that is absolutely not what happened. But you rationalized it in such a way to make yourself think you where right all along. You see, you argued that the MMR vaccine caused autism because of the results of the wakefield studies. Furthermore you tried to say other vaccines can cause autism because of the organomercurials. However, I and others showed you that wakefield was an unethical scientist, and that the organomercurial (the name escapes me now) hasn't been used for a long time in anything but influenza vaccine. That's when you said that the influenza vaccine causes autism which also isn't true because the flu vaccine isn't even given to those at risk, meaning young children. You actually got to the point that you said you where sure that vaccines where a method of poisoning the public because of what bill gates said. Even thought all the science doesn't point in that direction and that wasn't even what bill gates was talking about.
Now the CDC "expert" your referencing did not come out after that discussion. In fact that came out a long while ago, but still does not prove that they are related. They said that more research is needed to be certain that it is not caused. You only saw what you wanted to see. And here you are, saying now that after our debate that the expert came out and confirmed you right. That's simply not what happened. This is your rationalization after the fact, exactly as I predicted. This proves your irrationality, lol.


Studies are published often in either direction. Notice that this is a study, not proof. Its evidence that must be considered, not taken at face value as you seem very willing to do as a way to again rationalize the case so you can say that you where right. In truth I'm really more on the fence on the fluoride debate. I wasn't then, but I do think that better research should be undertaken.


And here you are seeing only what you want to see. I have at no point here said that the police are not militarizing. In fact, I agree that the police are becoming more outfitted with advanced equipment and some of that was from the military. Important to note that not all of it was, but nonetheless true that the police have updated quantity and quality of equipment.
You aren't even seeing my arguments for what they really are. All you see is what you want to see because if your confirmation bias.

I did not argue that on the basis of the wakefield studies but i did mention them in amongst the sea of information i filled that thread with

You're wrong what makes something wrong or right is whether or not it comes true and i have a very good track record of being right

You have no track record here; your account is empty here

At the moment there is no reason for me to respect your opinions except common courtesy

The proof is in the pudding...so...stay tuned to events and lets monitor them

 

[dogman6126]

You're wrong what makes something wrong or right is whether or not it comes true and i have a very good track record of being right

lol, now THAT is a logical fallacy. What makes something right is not whether or not it correctly predicts an outcome. For example, when calculating how water moves through a curved pipe, calculations are actually done considering lattice structures. But no one would interpret that to say that the water actually assumes a lattice structure.

You have no track record here

At the moment there is no reason for me to respect your opinions except common courtesy

The proof is in the pudding...so...stay tuned to events and lets monitor them

You couldn't see me being right because you want to only see me as being wrong. That's your confirmation bias. You rationalize it in such a way you even convince yourself that its true, per the example I listed previously, that has been proven. I work to eliminate my biases. You seem to thrive on yours.