RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


popeye1250 -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 9:16:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

Progressive (wanting to move on, constantly improve, change things, etc) is the opposite of conservative (respect traditions, don't mess with things that work ya might break them, etc).

Liberalism (do what ya like within reason) opposes authoritarianism (do what I/god say).

None of the 4 are necessarily tied to either left or right wing, but authoritarianism usually mixes with conservatism because tradition overlaps hugely with religion....and conservative generally = lower taxes, so right wing....because everyone likes to think there were less taxes back in the day....which is true if you go back far enough. The USSR vs US thing that was going also helped this.

However, there are multiple examples of both left & right being both authoritarian & liberal, progressive & conservative....if you really have to use such broad labels, IMO it's a mistake to talk as if progressive always= left wing.....and it's definitely wrong to conflate liberal & left.



DC, yes, there's a huge chasm between "liberal" and "left." I've made that distinction in here many times.
The term "progressive" is confusing as Hillary Clinton not too long ago reffered to herself as being a "progressive" when less than a year before most thought of her as "liberal." Did she have an epiphany or something?
I think the "left wing" and "right wing" probably comprise maybe 2-3% (each) of the population and that's certainly reflected in this site. They seem to be "close cousins" in their thinking.
I must have a good shot of "progressiveness" in me as I want to "change things" too!
And there's no mention of "populists" in this thread, I like that philosophy too, "if it's good for (The People) it's good!" B.O. could use a good dose of "populism", hanging around with and taking money from big bankers and Wall St insiders won't get him re-elected. Especially when so many are unemployed or underemployed.




DCWoody -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 11:07:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

Progressive (wanting to move on, constantly improve, change things, etc) is the opposite of conservative (respect traditions, don't mess with things that work ya might break them, etc).

Liberalism (do what ya like within reason) opposes authoritarianism (do what I/god say).

None of the 4 are necessarily tied to either left or right wing, but authoritarianism usually mixes with conservatism because tradition overlaps hugely with religion....and conservative generally = lower taxes, so right wing....because everyone likes to think there were less taxes back in the day....which is true if you go back far enough. The USSR vs US thing that was going also helped this.

However, there are multiple examples of both left & right being both authoritarian & liberal, progressive & conservative....if you really have to use such broad labels, IMO it's a mistake to talk as if progressive always= left wing.....and it's definitely wrong to conflate liberal & left.



DC, yes, there's a huge chasm between "liberal" and "left." I've made that distinction in here many times.
The term "progressive" is confusing as Hillary Clinton not too long ago reffered to herself as being a "progressive" when less than a year before most thought of her as "liberal." Did she have an epiphany or something?
I think the "left wing" and "right wing" probably comprise maybe 2-3% (each) of the population and that's certainly reflected in this site. They seem to be "close cousins" in their thinking.
I must have a good shot of "progressiveness" in me as I want to "change things" too!
And there's no mention of "populists" in this thread, I like that philosophy too, "if it's good for (The People) it's good!" B.O. could use a good dose of "populism", hanging around with and taking money from big bankers and Wall St insiders won't get him re-elected. Especially when so many are unemployed or underemployed.




No dude, ya've completely missed my point. These labels describe positions...or averages of groups of positions around a similar theme, not people. You can not say 'leftist' and describe someones entire political position. Left wing & right wing are....as the 'wing' part suggests, directions....the vast majority of america (certainly both parties) is right wing compared to the UK (and the UK is a little further right than much of the continent)....but the democrats are nevertheless the left wing of american politics. Left & right originally translated roughly as reformist/progressive vs conservative, but these days they've moved and blurred so much.....it's best IMO to limit their usuage to the financial size of government. Left meaning higher spending and therefore higher taxes, right lower taxes and therefore lower spending. Aside from the extreme minority who're absolutely happy with everything as it is right now, and a few who have very different ideas about government funding....everyone is either left or right....just some only very slightly so.

It is also possible (common) to be progressive/reformist & liberal, they are not exclusive.

IMO most of america is moderately liberal, (freedom of speech, fuck who ya like, etc) but with a significant more authoritarian minority (the religious anti-gay marriage lot), fairly conservative (change the constitution? not a popular position), and quite a lot further right (although this isn't actually reflected in levels of taxation due to incompetent/disorganised/unrepresentative/corrupt governance) than most of the developed world.

Both usa parties act/campaign populist, although the republicans clearly aren't by hell of a long way. I don't find it a particularly helpful label.




luckydawg -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 12:44:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

quote:

Case in point: WMDs in Iraq. It has been conclusively proven that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. To avoid cognitive dissonance between that fact and their beliefs that there were, some who supported that rationale for the invasion came up with the theory that they were all transported to Syria. They even found some guy in Iraq who supposedly was on a plane (IIRC) that was ferrying WMDs to Syria. He has since been discredited, but those cons who supported the WMD rationale simply can not accept the facts. They contimue to insist that they exist(ed).



Case in point, the rationale for the war was written in a resolution, adn sent o and approved by Congress (majorities of both parties). The resolution did not say Iraq has WMD. It said Saddam had consitently prevented the inspectors to do thier jobs, and had refused to comply with the relevant UN and Ceasefire resolutions. Yet "Progressives" continue to pretend the Actuall resolution doesn.t matter, and rely on the Spin from the daily show as the "rationale" for the war.

And no matter how many times you show them the actuall resolution and list of those who supported it, will they acknowledge it.



The fact that the Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force didn't mention WMDs is irrelevant. Many Neocons used the "existence" of WMDs as a pretext for invasion. It is to that phenomenon which I obviously speak.

Your Red Herring doesn't swim.




what a perfect post.

The resolution did in fact mention WMDS. Just not in the way, you want to pretend. Your reply (as well as your initial claim) are false. Bringingup the facts is not a red Herring. You pretending an anonomous "many" is a red herring. and a wonderfull example of Cog Dis.




Jeffff -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 12:52:54 PM)

This is directly from the resolution.

Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded
that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs
threatened vital United States interests and international
peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the President
‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution
and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations’’;


I believe you used the phrase. "non meaningful way"

I guess it depends on how you define meaningful.


Here is a link to the entire resolution.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf


Google can be a bitch huh.




luckydawg -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 1:09:13 PM)

Jefffff, you do realise it was Bill Clinton who signed Public law 105-235 into existance, don't you?




juliaoceania -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 1:10:11 PM)

quote:

Except in the minds of idiots who think Sarah Palin said "she could see Russia from her house".


No, it is well known that was a comedy sketch, but what made it so funny is that there is a seed of truth to it... in other words it has not been refudiated that Sarah Palin is a dumb bitch




luckydawg -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 1:15:21 PM)

And who says Liberals are idiots running on emotion......




juliaoceania -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 1:17:06 PM)

"Who" does say that?




Lucylastic -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 1:20:01 PM)

The Borg!




dcnovice -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 1:21:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

And who says Liberals are idiots running on emotion......


http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3366967




juliaoceania -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 1:24:34 PM)

fast reply

I find it rather amusing that the people who accuse liberals of being out of control of their emotions are the same people that cannot control their emotions on message boards




Jeffff -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 1:27:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg




Case in point, the rationale for the war was written in a resolution, adn sent o and approved by Congress (majorities of both parties). The resolution did not say Iraq has WMD. It said Saddam had consitently prevented the inspectors to do thier jobs, and had refused to comply with the relevant UN and Ceasefire resolutions. Yet "Progressives" continue to pretend the Actuall resolution doesn.t matter, and rely on the Spin from the daily show as the "rationale" for the war.

And no matter how many times you show them the actuall resolution and list of those who supported it, will they acknowledge it.



I apologize. I did not even misquote you. Sometimes I skim. You made no mention of meaningful.

However the resolution says a bit more than you claim here.


PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002

Bill Clinton was not in office at this time. Bill Clinton's Secretary of State did not tell the United Nations that there was evidence of WMD's




Lucylastic -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 1:30:00 PM)

Not derailing Lucky, but a drive by...mainly because your posts make my arse pucker




juliaoceania -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 1:51:41 PM)

Lets draw a road map of why conservative thinking might be more conducive to cognitive dissonance...

Conservative by definition is being resistant to change. If you are resistant to change, you are probably going to be resistant to new ways of doing things and new ideas. If the new ideas conflict with your old ones you will resist them... that is what cognitive dissonance is.

Now most people are not stereotypes, meaning they are not entirely conservative in their thinking. Plus, no matter how much people WANT to embrace new ideas, they often have trouble doing so when they challenge their belief system...

But the fact remains, conservativism celebrates being unchanging. It encourages holding on to old ideas and ways of doing things... so there maybe a point to what the OP suggests....




luckydawg -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 1:59:14 PM)

And she doesn't even realise that she just made my point perfectly folks......




juliaoceania -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 2:17:18 PM)

Here are the facts

The fact is that the UN wanted to give the weapons inspectors more time. If they had been given more time we might not have had to invade at all. Because Bush wanted to get his war on he did not want to allow more time, this might have hurt his pretense to start the war at all. Folks, the Bush Admin cherry picked piss poor evidence about the WMD, and tried to destroy anyone who had information contrary to the crap they were telling the UN and congress...





Lucylastic -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 2:44:54 PM)

While Canada had previously participated military action against Iraq in the Gulf War of 1991, it refused to declare war against Iraq without United Nations approval. Even so, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said on October 10, 2002 that Canada would, in fact, be part of a military coalition to invade Iraq if it were sanctioned by the United Nations. However, when the United States and the United Kingdom subsequently withdrew their diplomatic efforts to gain that UN sanction, Jean Chrétien announced in Parliament on March 17, 2003 that Canada would not participate in the pending invasion. Nevertheless, he offered the US and its soldiers his moral support.




DomKen -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 2:56:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Homeopathic medicine is water


Oh really? I do not think this is true, I think it is sometimes true, but not all of the time...

Do you know what 6C and 30C mean in connection with homeopathy? You're welcome to do the math yourslef. Homeopathic remedies are water.

quote:

quote:

"Psychics" who talk to the dead are using the old carnival trick called cold reading


Again, some of the time, but that does not mean this is true all of the time

Anyone who is really speaking to the dead should be able to do it in a manner not exactly like cold reading, none of them do. It's a scam.

quote:

quote:

Pacifism as a national policy would work



This, again, works some of the time....

No. It would not. The examples always pointed to are simply secure in the knowledge they are protected by a larger ally. That's not pacifism. Paxcifism would be openly declaring that a nation was refusing to use violence to defend itself and wanted no one else to do so either.




juliaoceania -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 3:09:49 PM)



quote:

Anyone who is really speaking to the dead should be able to do it in a manner not exactly like cold reading, none of them do. It's a scam.


So you make no allowances that people truly think they speak to dead people and they get no pay for it, and they do it for free? Scam is trying to cheat someone out of something,and not all people who believe themselves to be psychic are out to scam people

quote:

No. It would not. The examples always pointed to are simply secure in the knowledge they are protected by a larger ally. That's not pacifism. Paxcifism would be openly declaring that a nation was refusing to use violence to defend itself and wanted no one else to do so either.


So you believe human beings will always be a war like species with no possibility of pacifism. I disagree.




DomKen -> RE: Cognitive Dissonance and the avoidance of Facts (8/21/2010 3:15:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania



quote:

Anyone who is really speaking to the dead should be able to do it in a manner not exactly like cold reading, none of them do. It's a scam.


So you make no allowances that people truly think they speak to dead people and they get no pay for it, and they do it for free? Scam is trying to cheat someone out of something,and not all people who believe themselves to be psychic are out to scam people

I don't care what they think. They're doing a carnival trick, a very old carnival trick. If not then why has one never survived scrutiny?

quote:

quote:

No. It would not. The examples always pointed to are simply secure in the knowledge they are protected by a larger ally. That's not pacifism. Paxcifism would be openly declaring that a nation was refusing to use violence to defend itself and wanted no one else to do so either.


So you believe human beings will always be a war like species with no possibility of pacifism. I disagree.

Peace and pacifism are different concepts. I hope for a world where peace is the rule but fully understand that the ability to wage war will always be the guarantor of that peace.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125