Phat Unplugged

When you're explaining something you understand then you will just naturally put it in your own words. When you're explaining something you don't understand then you will, by necessity, be forced to use someone else's words or make something up. You do both.--Percy

if your argument is easy to criticize then it probably isn't a very good argument.

Also, we're not the peanut gallery. We're the people he's in discussion with.--Percy

peanut gallery
Another term that he has no idea what it means.

You were right. I looked up the definition and realized that I had it twisted. A peanut gallery originated with a section of cheap seats where the patrons were given free peanuts to eat, which they threw at bad performers. I was under the prior assumption that the peanut gallery was simply a group of critics, watching from the sidelines.I fully admit that I dont know everything nor am I more intelligent than any of you but I consider myself an equal. I have had a fair amount of education but have largely been self-taught the past twenty years. This does not mean that I don't read. My flaw, among many (and according to many of you), is that I do not employ critical thinking as a discipline.

That's the definition from online dictionaries, and maybe they're right, but that's not how I thought it was defined. Unfortunately I'm traveling now and can't access my home dictionary, which is much more thorough than online dictionaries, but I thought a peanut gallery was a group casting comments from the sidelines that can be critical, humorous, informational, etc. No one cares who's more intelligent than who. What matters is who can support their positions with evidence and arguments. All you need do is, after making a declaration (like "This will happen sooner than you think"), ask yourself, "How do I know this is so?" That will lead you on a search for evidence which you can use to build supporting arguments.--Percy

Duly noted, though in the case of some of my pet arguments evidence is not an easy thing to find. In the matter of my Christian apologetic, this is to be expected. jar and I have gone endlessly round and round on Christian apologetic for decades. jar was rarely humorous and was always attempting to frame the argument rather than serve and volley it.
Concerning you, you always assume that my responses are determined by my blood sugar or by damage from diabetes, which may be somewhat accurate yet is in my opinion a bit condescending. Its like constantly telling someone who stutters that they stutter. To be more specific, you are forever pointing out that *you have told me* time and time again about the fallacy of my arguments concerning financial apologetics and about how you have corrected my misinformation which (you claim) I get through parroting youtubers who peddle such information.
While you are correct as to my sources, your error is assuming they are but cons. I have found that business people make it their job to predict and plan for future possible events that will affect their bottom line. The public-at-large relies on traditional media and global politics to calm them rather than to necessarily inform them. As you know, I do not trust the wisdom of politicians nor their staffs at doing anything right whereas I am more likely to trust businessmen due to the information that they get from their respective sources.I do ask myself some questions, however. (which is why I resent being told how to think) I can do it on my own. At times, I see the vast narrative which I digest as being one giant infomercial. Business people try to persuade their audience to believe and act a certain way. To invest in certain things and not in others. For most of you, your bullshit detectors automatically resist such persuasions and you entrust your finances to paid experts. God knows I am no financial expert as my chronic gambling has shown. Where you and I differ is that you warn me that I am easily persuaded and that my blood sugar swings can and do often alter my perspective and my critical thinking. I try and persuade you that I have good intuition whereas you challenge that and tell me to get help.Ringo was my favorite, however. I miss that guy! I actually looked forward to his inevitable response to each of my assertions, because he not only had a good comeback but he was humorous to boot! Perhaps he died suddenly and we will never know for sure. I cannot believe that he simply chose to walk away from us.
​

Again, duly noted. Its not so much that I disagree with you as it is that you have no respect for my intuition since it isn't clearly backed by evidence. I will try harder to find some.

For once, maybe you should try presenting evidence and explaining why you think it is evidence.Actually, start small. Learn what evidence is.

Intuition is bullshit. Do you see anyone else here arguing about their intuition?
I, and I gather most people here, have no respect for anyone's intuition.

why would anyone have any respect for anyone else's "intuition" especially if it's not backed by evidence? Facts > your feelings

To put this is perspective, I don't trust my own intuition.That's part of critical thinking. Don't trust your intuition, and instead start looking for evidence.

As the founder of a local skeptics group said, he seeks out evidence and valid arguments against his positions. Because he doesn't want to believe something that's false, he tests his positions by inviting and listening to criticism from opponents of his position. If his position still stands after having been hit with the best that the opposition can muster, then that indicates that it is robust. But if it falls apart, then good riddance!For an example, consider creationism and creationist claims all of which fall apart the moment you examine them.Or, if Phat is given to seeking wisdom in quotes, there's this one from Inspector Jacques Clouseau:

Clouseau:

---

Assume nothing! Suspect everything!

---

If that were the case then the 2008 financial crisis would not have happened. What we have learned is that most business people are focused on short term profits, long term consequences be damned. Never trust your intuition. Follow the facts, not what you want to be true. Remember that the person easiest to fool is yourself.

You've heard it from all of us now, but you've heard it before many times and done nothing about it.I might consider your intuition on what today's takings at your shop might be because maybe you do actually have relevant experience to form a good estimate. I'd still prefer to see it from your accounts, but ok, until I see it in the books, I'll take your guess.But no-one is going to take your intuition on much else because you've got a track record of pontification on things you've no personal experience of or things that you've picked up from right-wing scam/nut-job sites uncritically. That's exactly the wrong thing to do. You'll find stacks of stuff to support whatever wacky idea you have in your head at the moment. Everything can be evidenced these days. If you go looking for evidence for what you already believe, you'll find it, no problem. How many times have you heard the phrase 'confirmation bias?'The question you need to ask yourself is 'how do I know that this is true?' How would you work out whether the bit of evidence you've searched out is valid? Or what weight to put on it?