Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are you objective?
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 16 of 75 (775560)
01-02-2016 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NoNukes
01-02-2016 4:15 PM


I'm responding to the "hot topics" issue.
People are put into a box on issues they don't want to be bothered with like the gun issue. Gun control isn't just some benign issue that it's supporters make it out to be (and they often do so while calling those they disagree with "rednecks" or something like it).
I do think a little perspective is needed on the gun issue. Especially when people are pin-holed as "irrational" or members of the non-objective community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 01-02-2016 4:15 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2016 6:12 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 17 of 75 (775569)
01-02-2016 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by LamarkNewAge
01-02-2016 4:21 PM


Re: I'm responding to the "hot topics" issue.
One key to objectivity is a reliance on evidence. Evidence of actual cause and effect relationships. One indicator of lacking objectivity is a reliance on the citing of things people believe. E.g. Lots of people believe in gods so the existence of gods is evidenced. Or people believe themselves to be safer when they own a gun so guns make people safer. Or the relentless citation of what people believe about migration rather than the facts of the subject.... Etc.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 4:21 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 6:48 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-03-2016 1:55 AM Straggler has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 18 of 75 (775570)
01-02-2016 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
01-02-2016 6:12 PM


Nice lecture.
But it was the OP who made a comment that strongly suggested that whites were the ones who opposed immigration, while non-whites supported it.
Honestly, I bet most blacks reading this thread wouldn't disagree with me saying that they oppose immigration. It has to be one of the top issues in the black community. I could give you examples of black people I talked to in the last few days (and specific details). Just go and talk to any black males you see (the males are very friendly and won't shut you up if you talk about serious issues) on the street lol.
Heck I just loaned a book to one I work with (and live near). I wasn't even slightly shocked when he sharply disagreed with me when I expressed pro-immigration views. He started telling me that immigration is a part of a "white plot" to make blacks suffer or something like that. Most blacks wouldn't disagree at all with my description (as long as I don't call anti-immigration views "racist").
I admit that polls make it sound like over 50% of blacks are pro-immigration but that can't be true (I'd like to see how many agree with Trump on immigration. I bet most would agree). I admit that the polls contradict much of what I say, but they sure don't back up the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2016 6:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2016 7:01 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-02-2016 8:10 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 19 of 75 (775571)
01-02-2016 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by LamarkNewAge
01-02-2016 6:48 PM


Re: Nice lecture.
It was one example pertaining to the wider topic of objectivity. You seem to have some sort of agenda going on in your responses that has caused you to seize on something that you think allows you to bring your particular bugbear to the fore.
Do you actually have anything to say on the subject of objectivity? Or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 6:48 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 7:08 PM Straggler has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 20 of 75 (775572)
01-02-2016 7:02 PM


Here is a study confirming my assertions.
Section 8: Values About Immigration and Race | Pew Research Center
quote:
Blacks view newcomers to the United States as more of a threat to American values (61%) than do whites (48%), while very few Hispanics (29%) express this view.
I attempted to past this chart here but it wont paste
6-4-12 V #92a | Pew Research Center

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 21 of 75 (775573)
01-02-2016 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Straggler
01-02-2016 7:01 PM


I would have just left it after 1 post.
quote:
It was one example pertaining to the wider topic of objectivity. You seem to have some sort of agenda going on in your responses that has caused you to seize on something that you think allows you to bring your particular bugbear to the fore.
Do you actually have anything to say on the subject of objectivity? Or not?
I made 1 post on the racial views on immigration OP comment.
I didn't expect people to argue with me (perhaps I should have).
The OP used three examples in the OP and this racial view on immigration issue was 1 out of 3 (33.33%).
People have been arguing with me ever since. Now you say I shouldn't even respond at all to the OP on the issue?
And I think the issue of what people choose to cover (or conversely what not to cover) is an issue of objectivity and bias.
Thank you very much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2016 7:01 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2016 7:20 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-03-2016 2:08 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 22 of 75 (775574)
01-02-2016 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by LamarkNewAge
01-02-2016 7:08 PM


Re: I would have just left it after 1 post.
So objectivity and how one might seek to achieve it? Anything? Anything at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 7:08 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 7:24 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 25 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 10:49 PM Straggler has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 23 of 75 (775575)
01-02-2016 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Straggler
01-02-2016 7:20 PM


LOL I'm not stopping the discussion, am I?
I think I might know how to respond to you on the specific issue. Let me check back later. I have other threads to read for now.
(if the OP was only offering the 3 examples as an aside, then I hope I didn't disrupt any of the "real topic" discussion)
Carry on folks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2016 7:20 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 24 of 75 (775577)
01-02-2016 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by LamarkNewAge
01-02-2016 6:48 PM


Re: Nice lecture.
LamarkNewAge writes:
But it was the OP who made a comment that strongly suggested that whites were the ones who opposed immigration, while non-whites supported it.
The sentence "How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country" from the opening post was an example of a poorly supported belief resulting from lack of objectivity. I used that example because of the recent thread With a dying white race, why are we not encouraging more white births?, where that attitude was much expressed. It was not intended as the topic of this thread. This thread is about objectivity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 6:48 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 25 of 75 (775582)
01-02-2016 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Straggler
01-02-2016 7:20 PM


I was going to quote a skeptics book.
I don't have it presently, but he had a very interesting chapter on Global Warming. Here is the Guy Harrison book 50 Popular Beliefs That People Think are True.
50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True - Guy P. Harrison - Google Books
The Global Warming chapter showed polling that about 80% of Democrats accept it and 75% of Republicans doubt it. However he noticed that the respective (self-identified) party members only took the position because it was a partisan political-party issue, NOT because of scientific evidence. He was critical of all sides for turning it into a Red/Blue political issue which ensured a wedge right down the middle of our nation when the issue shouldn't be so polarizing.
I agree with him. Like, Harrison, I think the scientific evidence is very clear in support of man-made global warming. But I also can't stand the tone of most global-warming supporters. They seem to be angry if anybody even asks questions and quickly ridicule people. I appreciate all the discussion that right-wing radio brings to the climate issue, and it gives a rare opportunity for science to be a topic brought to tens of millions of radio listeners. If the supporters of mainstream scientific evidence would just be polite and non-political, then much education would be possible.
I accept global warming but I respect people asking questions about just how much man contributes to the issue. I also respect those who say that the economics of controlling fossil fuel emissions might be worse than doing nothing. The human cost to increasing energy prices can hurt human progress in many areas-including scientific research. The path to more efficient fuel cells requires energy-sucking computer simulations (especially at the Exaflop level). How quickly one advances technologically depends on how fast economic growth is. A robust world-economy fuels much higher research and development budgets.
I was listening to C-SPAN after Obama announced tough new regulations for the power plants everybody currently uses. Callers called in and said that while they accept global warming (so many callers had to put in a disclaimer "I accept global warming" so they wouldn't be called morons or idiots), "we have to work with the technology we have now," "we can't afford solar panels," "these regulations on existing power-plants really will hurt poor people," etc.
Those who make fun of those asking tough questions about the global warming issue need to respect the full spectrum of concerns and issues at play. Strawman "responses" and arguments are far too common. I'm not saying anybody at EvC does this, but it does happen a lot.
And lets understand that every side ("left" or "right") is full of lemmings who just follow their leader(s). Everybody (in every place) engages in group think. People rarely think for themselves and are quick to use issues as a political football.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2016 7:20 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 75 (775586)
01-03-2016 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by LamarkNewAge
01-02-2016 1:46 PM


Re: One issue I take with your comments
Black African immigrants (to the USA) and American-born blacks H-A-T-E each other. Aside from South African black-immigrants, I can assure you that black African-immigrants consider whites less racist against them than (multi-generational) African-Americans are. I'm not proud of the growing anti-immigrant views among Americans but (multi-generational) blacks are the worst.
If we are speaking in generalities, and it sounds like we are, then anecdotally I have witnessed similar findings that you are describing. I have seen American blacks treat Haitians and blacks from other countries with disdain, and I've seen blacks very upset about an increasing Asian and Hispanic population that are gentrifying neighborhoods that historically were almost entirely black-owned. Many black Africans view African-Americans with contempt for being disrespectful, and I've seen African-American's feeling superior because they were part of the slave trade which places them in a league of their own. I've witnessed all of that.
BUT, in the spirit of the OP on being objective, I've also seen the inverse to be true as well. I've seen white Americans being very receptive towards immigrants and I've seen others despising the idea. Take it all with a grain of salt, judge on a case-by-case basis and remember that painting with a fine tip produces greater accuracy than painting with a large brush.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 1:46 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 75 (775587)
01-03-2016 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
01-02-2016 3:15 PM


Re: One issue I take with your comments
Thank you for this fine anecdotal example of lack of objectivity.
LOL! I thought it was a little ironic too given the thread's subject.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 01-02-2016 3:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 28 of 75 (775588)
01-03-2016 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
01-02-2016 6:12 PM


Re: I'm responding to the "hot topics" issue.
One key to objectivity is a reliance on evidence. Evidence of actual cause and effect relationships. One indicator of lacking objectivity is a reliance on the citing of things people believe. E.g. Lots of people believe in gods so the existence of gods is evidenced. Or people believe themselves to be safer when they own a gun so guns make people safer. Or the relentless citation of what people believe about migration rather than the facts of the subject.... Etc.
All true, but it's also important to remember that in some cases the evidence itself may be skewed to fit an agenda. In terms of gun control, both proponents and opponents have a strong incentive to fluff information. It's kind of like manipulative polling tactics. The numbers may be accurate, but the questions themselves may be suspiciously loaded and designed to elicit a specific response.
Sometimes we can be overly-reliant on citations that may be questionable.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2016 6:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 01-03-2016 3:32 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 75 (775589)
01-03-2016 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by LamarkNewAge
01-02-2016 7:08 PM


Re: I would have just left it after 1 post.
I made 1 post on the racial views on immigration OP comment.
I didn't expect people to argue with me (perhaps I should have).
The OP used three examples in the OP and this racial view on immigration issue was 1 out of 3 (33.33%).
People have been arguing with me ever since. Now you say I shouldn't even respond at all to the OP on the issue?
He was just using it as an example of a divisive topic where people can lose their objectivity. I don't think it was said as an invitation to discuss it at length.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 7:08 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-03-2016 2:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 30 of 75 (775594)
01-03-2016 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hyroglyphx
01-03-2016 1:55 AM


Re: I'm responding to the "hot topics" issue.
Evaluating evidence is part of taking an objective approach.
The tobacco industry and evidence on health effects is an example of where things can go wrong if people have an agenda, but ultimately facts are facts and there comes a point where the true picture becomes inarguable.
I would put forward climate change and gun advocacy as examples of those in denial about facts in much the same way that the tobacco industry was previously. All the same signs are there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-03-2016 1:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-03-2016 5:15 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2016 2:53 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 46 by GDR, posted 01-03-2016 6:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024