**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

I'm not a fan of having my intelligence and integrity marginalized by people who should know better by now.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not a fan of having my intelligence and integrity marginalized by people who should know better by now.

I'm not meaning to marginalize anything about you, and I'm sorry if I came across that way. I admit my style of arguing can sometimes be a bit grating and it's something I should try to tone down.

I think you're very smart and I don't doubt you sincerely believe the things you say. I think you just need to be a little more open-minded, and to try to accept the fact that like everyone else (including me) you don't have everything all figured out all the time, which is how you sometimes come across.

[wufwugy]

I'm not meaning to marginalize anything about you, and I'm sorry if I came across that way. I admit my style of arguing can sometimes be a bit grating and it's something I should try to tone down.

I think you're very smart and I don't doubt you sincerely believe the things you say. I think you just need to be a little more open-minded, and to try to accept the fact that like everyone else (including me) you don't have everything all figured out all the time, which is how you sometimes come across.

What are some examples, or what do you mean, about being more open-minded?

A decent deal of what I think gets me labeled as close-minded is a misreading of what I said. Granted, I am a mortal, and can present things ambiguously by accident. Regardless, I'd like some clarification on what you mean.

[Poopadoop]

What are some examples, or what do you mean, about being more open-minded?

What I mean is you tend to stick with what you believe regardless of what happens or anyone else's arguments.

The Trump train thing is one example. A dispassionate observer would probably look at the evidence back when you made your prediction of a Trump landslide and say it's pretty unlikely unless something changes in a bigly way. But you had all these arguments for why he would crush and were 100% sure that would happen. It's like you took the evidence that supported your views as the valid evidence and dismissed everything else as flawed. You made a few posts between then and now where you found more 'evidence' for this view which, when called out on (as I did with the Florida absentee ballot thing where you predicted an exact number), you passionately defended. Meanwhile you continued to dismiss every bit of evidence against your position as flawed.

Moving on. A dispassionate observer would likely say that at this moment in time, Trump's losing badly, he did this wrong, he did that wrong, he lost the first debate and maybe drew the second, etc. You (I'm guessing based on past behavior) would argue against all of this. You thought he won the first debate even though he lost (I don't know what that means but it's what you said). Your first reaction to pussygate was to interpret it as being good for him. Your first reaction to the latest polls was to say they were rigged. The impression I get (and I could be misinterpreting you I admit) is that it's as if you don't like to even entertain the idea that you may be wrong. And it's that that makes a person appear close-minded.

[wufwugy]

What I mean is you tend to stick with what you believe regardless of what happens or anyone else's arguments.

The Trump train thing is one example. A dispassionate observer would probably look at the evidence back when you made your prediction of a Trump landslide and say it's pretty unlikely unless something changes in a bigly way. But you had all these arguments for why he would crush and were 100% sure that would happen. It's like you took the evidence that supported your views as the valid evidence and dismissed everything else as flawed. You made a few posts between then and now where you found more 'evidence' for this view which, when called out on (as I did with the Florida absentee ballot thing where you predicted an exact number), you passionately defended. Meanwhile you continued to dismiss every bit of evidence against your position as flawed.

Moving on. A dispassionate observer would likely say that at this moment in time, Trump's losing badly, he did this wrong, he did that wrong, he lost the first debate and maybe drew the second, etc. You (I'm guessing based on past behavior) would argue against all of this. You thought he won the first debate even though he lost (I don't know what that means but it's what you said). Your first reaction to pussygate was to interpret it as being good for him. Your first reaction to the latest polls was to say they were rigged. The impression I get (and I could be misinterpreting you I admit) is that it's as if you don't like to even entertain the idea that you may be wrong. And it's that that makes a person appear close-minded.

In my mind, I post things that are questionable, and when I get called on them from time to time, I then back them up with points. What could I do to make it appear less like I'm about bias and more about using reason?

[Poopadoop]

What could I do to make it appear less like I'm about bias and more about using reason?

What do you think you could do?

[wufwugy]

What do you think you could do?

The psychologist at work.

I've asked the question many times. I don't know the answer.

[Savy]

I'm not a fan of having my intelligence and integrity marginalized by people who should know better by now.

Tbf that is exactly what your post would look like if Clinton won.

[wufwugy]

Tbf that is exactly what your post would look like if Clinton won.

as long as there's enough evidence. if there wasn't evidence, i might still believe it but i wouldn't say much about it.