Abbott can now focus on fixing Brookie Oval....

[Rex]

I never indicated they were flaws in her. I like the passion she displays and it is another facet to consider when appreciating an opinion. But even she realises that to get to the core of a matter, you need to first remove the likes of love, empathy, greed, fear, etc. The core is the starting point.

There is no point argueing for/against boat policies if you don't get to the crux of the matter; painting them all as fleeing war or Muslim invaders is wrong. But that is where people plant their beliefs, often because it feels right.

Once you can see the gears, you can then consider outcomes and build an opinion or idea that deals with more than the emotive, and can even go so far as to consider consequences. Too often, emotion will fail to allow you to accept those and it has been unfortunate to see it even in our highest political office over the last decade.

So considering that point of view, perhaps I consider myself a more independent/critical thinker than most. I sense your assertion that I must think of myself as 'better' or 'all-knowing', but I would never consider my opinions to always be the right ones, nor would I suggest ever shutting down opposing views I don't agree with. My opinions change when the facts do, or I learn more.

That is why I like to consider my views as opinions or ideas, as opposed to a belief; the latter is far harder to change than the former.

1. A good example of your use of the "Straw Man Fallacy". i.e. You've misrepresented and exaggerated my argument in order to make it easier to attack. I never claimed you said they were flaws in your Leftie wife. (I don't doubt you enjoy her passion, etc.) I said you claimed they were flaws in your Leftie wife's reasoning. That is exactly what you are arguing. That she has major flaws in her reasoning process - grossly distorted by emotion, easily misled, and not an "independent thinker". And that you save her, and correct her, and set her right, through your superior thinking abilities.

2. You've overtly stated that you lump all emotion together as factors that automatically distort reasoned thinking. You believe that love, empathy and compassion are factors that prevent, and get in the way of, independent thought. So by that measure, you would consider Nelson Mandela, for example, as incapable of independent thought because he was so widely regarded as highly compassionate, empathic and full of love.

Autism is the condition of not having the capability of "theory of mind". i.e. They cannot understand that others can have mental states different from their own - that they can have different thoughts, beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions and perspectives to their own. Because of this they cannot understand others or really relate to them - so they cannot experience empathy, compassion, or love. High functioning people with autism are often labelled as having Aspergers, although there is no differentiation now in the psychological profession. So what you are suggesting is that people with Autism/Aspergers fit your model of what it means to be an independent thinker. That the "Rain Man" is what we should aspire to?

3. You've indicated now that you are fallible in your thinking. I'd suggest that stance makes you more credible, especially if it is backed up in deeds not just presenting words.

Edit 23/9
People with Autism aren't able to read others' emotional states. This can be extraordinarily confusing and painful for them to not understand social cues, including non-verbals. As a result people are seen and treated by them purely as objects. This social capability to read emotions - to feel them and to care - is fundamental to our ability to form functional societies. Despite the TV fantasy, Dr Spock would be autistically disabled in his rationality.

 

[Hamster Huey]

Ironic that your strawman accusation comes complete with...a strawman argument. :-D You made the assertion I thought of her process as flawed when all I indicated was that she has a particular trait...she may get her facts wrong but she can form an opinion any which way she wants. I even stated I have learnt off her. To falsely frame my comments to suggest I look down on her (or others with a similar trait) is grossly misleading, and disappointing to read.

As for Mandela, do you know how he came to his views? The thought processes he employed? Where he came from as an individual prior to his jail time, and how his experiences shaped his methods to rationally think out a situation? Was his projected compassion a result of not thinking about the situation, or a tool to use after his critical thinking?

I addressed your initial question but you seem to be scratching around for some other comment or gotcha. Good luck with that.

 

[Rex]

There are sheep within both spectrum. A true 'independent thinker' can assess any given subject on balance and respond without emotion, ie. just the facts.

As you have shown in your comment about Murdoch press and commercial tv being 'staunchly' conservative, I get the sense you feel that is what they are (with the use of gradient language for emphasis), as opposed to where they more likely sit.

The largest media group in this country is not Murdoch's handful of daily papers. It is our own national broadcaster, with 24hr news, 4 commercial stations, radio networks and a large digital footprint. Yet their coverage is rarely discussed critically amongst the most politically active in this country, with 'bias' and 'hate' media claims always directed against one side; the one that is often prepared to offer counter views. Why is that?

OK. You want facts to be checked. Let’s check the facts HH:

Your Claimed Fact 1

Ironic that your strawman accusation comes complete with...a strawman argument. :-D You made the assertion I thought of her process as flawed when all I indicated was that she has a particular trait...

Fact check:

Here is what you actually said in describing your wife:

“My partner sits very much to the Left, politically speaking. But she has also learnt a lot about what she accepted as fact, was based on mis-information and presumption. She does hate me for it sometimes as I keep the debate focused on the point, but even she admits that it is the emotive side that she reacts with first.” (Posting 128)

“But even she realises that to get to the core of a matter, you need to first remove the likes of love, empathy, greed, fear, etc. The core is the starting point.” (Posting 140)

ALL of these comments by you point to perceived flaws in her processes. The guts of your claims are that your Leftie wife’s accepted facts are based on mis-information and presumption, and that she reacts emotively – but that you fix her up with your superior fact checking processes.

Conclusion

The facts presented do not support (and in fact contradict) your claim that I used a strawman argument. Do you have any actual facts to support the claim?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claimed Fact 2

I even stated I have learnt off her.

Fact check:

This is simply untrue and is quite misleading, isn’t it? I’ve checked all your relevant postings (postings 128, 140) and cannot find any such statement.

Conclusion

Your need to win the argument has apparently caused you to fabricate a lie – intentionally or unintentionally. You said “I will call out falsehoods, misinformation and strawmen, presented from any direction.” (Posting 128) Will that include you calling out this falsehood from your direction?

Claimed Fact 3

To falsely frame my comments to suggest I look down on her (or others with a similar trait) is grossly misleading, and disappointing to read.

Fact Check:

Reread your comments about your wife. Are these comments you would really want her to read? They appear designed to elevate your standing and authority as the fact checker we should respect – by degrading hers. I’d suggest your statements like “even she …” (whilst negatively criticising her processes) would be read by most people as pretty condescending.

I've read your comments in this forum about left wing people, media, etc as unambiguously and consistently negative. That’s your prerogative. But do you not see that you are as emotively driven in your preconceptions as those you criticise?

 

[Rex]

As for Mandela, do you know how he came to his views? The thought processes he employed? Where he came from as an individual prior to his jail time, and how his experiences shaped his methods to rationally think out a situation? Was his projected compassion a result of not thinking about the situation, or a tool to use after his critical thinking?

Are you interested in investigating the distorting impacts of emotions on thinking? Whether there are differences in impacts between the different emotions? Whether emotions can have a positive impact? What function emotions play, given they have been a central part of our survival mechanism? etc, etc

Or .. have you already made up your mind and are only interested in arguing a position?

 

[Loobs]

Are you interested in investigating the distorting impacts of emotions on thinking? Whether there are differences in impacts between the different emotions? Whether emotions can have a positive impact? What function emotions play, given they have been a central part of our survival mechanism? etc, etc

Or .. have you already made up your mind and are only interested in arguing a position?

If you are going to talk emotions I'd like to bring in the expert - Technical Coach

 

[Hamster Huey]

Rex, simply because my current views don't align with yours, doesn't mean I haven't applied my stated techniques to reach them. The moment you inserted the word 'flaw' to try and frame my opinion regarding my debates with my partner, was when you injected emotion in the matter. To use a subsequent wordfest and misleading use of 'fact checks' to try justify your interpretation and keep others from recognising your own emotive input initially, does you no favours.

If you fail to recognise that those who see themselves from the Left are far more prone to emotive discussion and decision making, then I'm afraid that you have your head in the sand. Throwing more words at this forum in an attempt to isolate my opinion, doesn't change that trait. Is it a flaw? Only if those same people continue to be driven my emotion to ignore the facts or uncritically justify their own beliefs without reflection.

 

[Bearfax]

Rex, simply because my current views don't align with yours, doesn't mean I haven't applied my stated techniques to reach them. The moment you inserted the word 'flaw' to try and frame my opinion regarding my debates with my partner, was when you injected emotion in the matter. To use a subsequent wordfest and misleading use of 'fact checks' to try justify your interpretation and keep others from recognising your own emotive input initially, does you no favours.

If you fail to recognise that those who see themselves from the Left are far more prone to emotive discussion and decision making, then I'm afraid that you have your head in the sand. Throwing more words at this forum in an attempt to isolate my opinion, doesn't change that trait. Is it a flaw? Only if those same people continue to be driven my emotion to ignore the facts or uncritically justify their own beliefs without reflection.

1 + 1 = 3. That's a flaw. Not sure how that makes it emotional, but if it upsets you what can I say.

 

[Fluffy]

Rex, simply because my current views don't align with yours, doesn't mean I haven't applied my stated techniques to reach them. The moment you inserted the word 'flaw' to try and frame my opinion regarding my debates with my partner, was when you injected emotion in the matter. To use a subsequent wordfest and misleading use of 'fact checks' to try justify your interpretation and keep others from recognising your own emotive input initially, does you no favours.

If you fail to recognise that those who see themselves from the Left are far more prone to emotive discussion and decision making, then I'm afraid that you have your head in the sand. Throwing more words at this forum in an attempt to isolate my opinion, doesn't change that trait. Is it a flaw? Only if those same people continue to be driven my emotion to ignore the facts or uncritically justify their own beliefs without reflection.

As someone who sits just left of central and endeavours to know facts before making a descision how would you as someone on the right describe the dumping of the carbon tax and all related areas. Given this was one of the biggest left/right areas of the last election?

My thoughts are is was a stupid move. It was working in its primary goal of reducing emmissions but more importantly we had growth in some economies outside of mining for once. Closing down the profit making arm was the icing on the cake that it was purely emotional/ideals based rather than science/fact based. This seemed to be the way of Abbott and thank fark he is gone.

Turnbull gives me hope but how much his arms are tied is the question.

 

[Rex]

Rex, simply because my current views don't align with yours, doesn't mean I haven't applied my stated techniques to reach them. The moment you inserted the word 'flaw' to try and frame my opinion regarding my debates with my partner, was when you injected emotion in the matter. To use a subsequent wordfest and misleading use of 'fact checks' to try justify your interpretation and keep others from recognising your own emotive input initially, does you no favours.

If you fail to recognise that those who see themselves from the Left are far more prone to emotive discussion and decision making, then I'm afraid that you have your head in the sand. Throwing more words at this forum in an attempt to isolate my opinion, doesn't change that trait. Is it a flaw? Only if those same people continue to be driven my emotion to ignore the facts or uncritically justify their own beliefs without reflection.

lol HH. I invited you to investigate the facts, given your claim to factual superiority. As expected, you have declined the challenge using all-too obvious tactics.

Logical fallacies you have just used:

1. Ad hominem: Attacking the person's character, not the argument.
You have totally avoided discussion of the facts presented, and have instead launched another diversion in the form of an extended personal attack.

2. Begging the question: Arguing your position by assuming your position is true
eg Despite your assertion, I never claimed to be unaffected by emotion, nor wanted others to believe I was unaffected by emotion. You, on the other hand, have overtly claimed superiority of emotional control.

3. Non sequitur: Arguing that "this" follows "that" when there is no logical connection.
eg Your claim that my use of the word "flaw" proves that I was injecting emotion into the matter. Maybe the word "flaw" has strong emotional triggers for you, which caused you to inject emotion into the matter?

4. Post Hoc/False Cause: Claiming that because something occurred before, it must be the cause
eg You said "simply because my current views don't align with yours, doesn't mean I haven't applied my stated techniques to reach them". I didn't seek to draw any connection between these two issues, and in fact don't see any connection.

5. False Dichotomy: Reducing an argument down to two possibilities
eg You said "If you fail to recognise that those who see themselves from the Left are far more prone to emotive discussion and decision making, then I'm afraid that you have your head in the sand". Are you also suggesting that anyone who doesn't see the world exactly as you see it in this respect must, by definition, have their head in the sand? Is there any other possibility?

6. Burden of Proof Reversal: Laying the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim
eg I asked you to substantiate your claim that I used a Straw Man Fallacy, with actual facts. In addition, I provided actual facts (your words) which directly contradicted that claim. You have failed to provide any facts to support your claim. Don't you have self-proclaimed expertise in focusing on facts?

This is quite fun HH. And educational in helping me to see through the use of logical fallacies. Please continue.

 

[globaleagle]

Not to take away from you guys...keep it going.....and since the mods wont move this to general discussion....

I think it's only appropriate that I include this cute gif.

Awwwwww!

(did you know the proper pronunciation of gif is....jif!)

 

[Hamster Huey]

1 + 1 = 3. That's a flaw. Not sure how that makes it emotional, but if it upsets you what can I say.

Not sure why you would think it would upset me? Interesting take.

As for the sum, it isn't a flaw...it is simply incorrect. To do something like state that 1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8 then round each to the nearest whole number, would then highlight a flaw. ;-)

 

[Loobs]

 

[Hamster Huey]

As someone who sits just left of central and endeavours to know facts before making a descision how would you as someone on the right describe the dumping of the carbon tax and all related areas. Given this was one of the biggest left/right areas of the last election?

My thoughts are is was a stupid move. It was working in its primary goal of reducing emmissions but more importantly we had growth in some economies outside of mining for once. Closing down the profit making arm was the icing on the cake that it was purely emotional/ideals based rather than science/fact based. This seemed to be the way of Abbott and thank fark he is gone.

Turnbull gives me hope but how much his arms are tied is the question.

My view was that in isolation, it was pointless. Australia going largely alone meant we wore the hurt economically as industry/manufacturing were given another reason to close up/head overseas. The emissions reduced makes all-but zero difference to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and thus no change to what could be measured as man-made global warming.

The carbon trades out of Europe are exposing a huge amount of corruption within the market and ultimately do nothing but line the pockets of some, while doing next to nothing to reduce emissions. Paying money to poor regimes to keep pumping out CO2 is ineffective.

While I believe government have a role in assisting manufacturing and industry adapt some cleaner technology, it is clear that the trillions thrown at the renewables/carbon markets have done nothing to limit CO2, especially with India and China still looking forward to 15-20 years of increase emissions.

 

[Hamster Huey]

lol HH. I invited you to investigate the facts, given your claim to factual superiority. As expected, you have declined the challenge using all-too obvious tactics.

Logical fallacies you have just used:

1. Ad hominem: Attacking the person's character, not the argument.
You have totally avoided discussion of the facts presented, and have instead launched another diversion in the form of an extended personal attack.

2. Begging the question: Arguing your position by assuming your position is true
eg Despite your assertion, I never claimed to be unaffected by emotion, nor wanted others to believe I was unaffected by emotion. You, on the other hand, have overtly claimed superiority of emotional control.

3. Non sequitur: Arguing that "this" follows "that" when there is no logical connection.
eg Your claim that my use of the word "flaw" proves that I was injecting emotion into the matter. Maybe the word "flaw" has strong emotional triggers for you, which caused you to inject emotion into the matter?

4. Post Hoc/False Cause: Claiming that because something occurred before, it must be the cause
eg You said "simply because my current views don't align with yours, doesn't mean I haven't applied my stated techniques to reach them". I didn't seek to draw any connection between these two issues, and in fact don't see any connection.

5. False Dichotomy: Reducing an argument down to two possibilities
eg You said "If you fail to recognise that those who see themselves from the Left are far more prone to emotive discussion and decision making, then I'm afraid that you have your head in the sand". Are you also suggesting that anyone who doesn't see the world exactly as you see it in this respect must, by definition, have their head in the sand? Is there any other possibility?

6. Burden of Proof Reversal: Laying the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim
eg I asked you to substantiate your claim that I used a Straw Man Fallacy, with actual facts. In addition, I provided actual facts (your words) which directly contradicted that claim. You have failed to provide any facts to support your claim. Don't you have self-proclaimed expertise in focusing on facts?

This is quite fun HH. And educational in helping me to see through the use of logical fallacies. Please continue.

Got to you making a claim that I think I am 'superior' and recognised that you are simply unable to process what I've stated, to this point. Good luck playing your word games with somebody else, Rex. I would suggest that perhaps you should reflect on all the points you've made above, but I perhaps you're a bit to 'superior' to recognise your own 'flaws'.

 

[Rex]

As someone who sits just left of central and endeavours to know facts before making a descision how would you as someone on the right describe the dumping of the carbon tax and all related areas. Given this was one of the biggest left/right areas of the last election?

My thoughts are is was a stupid move. It was working in its primary goal of reducing emmissions but more importantly we had growth in some economies outside of mining for once. Closing down the profit making arm was the icing on the cake that it was purely emotional/ideals based rather than science/fact based. This seemed to be the way of Abbott and thank fark he is gone.

Turnbull gives me hope but how much his arms are tied is the question.

Abbott was totally welded onto to the extreme right wing fundamentalist loonies in the Libs. Loony hard-line extremists like Cory (Pauline-Hanson-eat-your-heart-out) Bernardi who Andrew Bolt (Abbott's mate) loves to death.

Abbott was so conservative, he was determined to take us back to the 1950s when we were tied to England, women were tied to the kitchen, and we didn't have new fangled concepts like solar power and wind power (I guess he accepted farm windmills are OK in Holland though). He rejected climate change and sea level rise was happening, despite all the scientific evidence. And he blindly accepted claims of wind turbine negative health effects without any evidence at all, and in direct opposition to weighty scientific evidence establishing that there were no discernible negative health effects. He sought to totally dismantle the renewable energy sector, to hyperjet us back into the 1950s. He fought hard to bring back 1950s values like homophobia and dames and knighthoods.

There is much nostalgia for the elderly to return to the romance of years gone by, but thank God Turnbull's in, and hopefully he can break the fundamentalist right wing extremist shackles.

 

[Rex]

Got to you making a claim that I think I am 'superior' and recognised that you are simply unable to process what I've stated, to this point. Good luck playing your word games with somebody else, Rex. I would suggest that perhaps you should reflect on all the points you've made above, but I perhaps you're a bit to 'superior' to recognise your own 'flaws'.

Never claimed to be flawless HH. If there's any flaws in humanity, I've got them all in spades. And I welcome them.

Bit sad that you're giving up so easily though.

 

[Hamster Huey]

Never claimed to be flawless HH. If there's any flaws in humanity, I've got them all in spades. And I welcome them.

Bit sad that you're giving up so easily though.

Bet I'm more flawed!!!

Just pacing myself...it already feels like a long off-season and we haven't even got to the GF to finish the current one.

 

[Rex]

My view was that in isolation, it was pointless. Australia going largely alone meant we wore the hurt economically as industry/manufacturing were given another reason to close up/head overseas. The emissions reduced makes all-but zero difference to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and thus no change to what could be measured as man-made global warming.

The carbon trades out of Europe are exposing a huge amount of corruption within the market and ultimately do nothing but line the pockets of some, while doing next to nothing to reduce emissions. Paying money to poor regimes to keep pumping out CO2 is ineffective.

While I believe government have a role in assisting manufacturing and industry adapt some cleaner technology, it is clear that the trillions thrown at the renewables/carbon markets have done nothing to limit CO2, especially with India and China still looking forward to 15-20 years of increase emissions.

I'm wondering HH.
1. Do you see greed and narrow self-interest as presenting a threat to humanity?
2. Do you see global warming as a threat to humanity?
3. To what extent do you see animals and other life forms as something to be treasured versus as objects to be used and farmed?
4. Do you have any interest in what happens on this planet after you're dead?
I'm not seeking a debate here or now, I'm only interested to know you a little better.

 

[Fluffy]

My view was that in isolation, it was pointless. Australia going largely alone meant we wore the hurt economically as industry/manufacturing were given another reason to close up/head overseas. The emissions reduced makes all-but zero difference to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and thus no change to what could be measured as man-made global warming.

The carbon trades out of Europe are exposing a huge amount of corruption within the market and ultimately do nothing but line the pockets of some, while doing next to nothing to reduce emissions. Paying money to poor regimes to keep pumping out CO2 is ineffective.

While I believe government have a role in assisting manufacturing and industry adapt some cleaner technology, it is clear that the trillions thrown at the renewables/carbon markets have done nothing to limit CO2, especially with India and China still looking forward to 15-20 years of increase emissions.

So basically the sheep approach - i will only follow if everyone else does and you support a motion based on emtion/beliefs/who's paying your election campaign rather than fact.

Manufaturing was not hurt by the carbon tax no matter what emotional garbage the right dredged up, it in fact created jobs within the indutry as well as downstream effects of purchasing more energy efficient drives etc. At the time it was culled the industry had adapted and was profiting as a whole. The energy giants and mining giants who make billions in profit were the ones who were slightly hurt by it (hence why it was scraped).

From my point of view working in manufacturing seeing things inprove in some areas and having an extra lever to pull it was a welcome relief on what is an industry that has had not real medium to long term government assistance for decades.

The "pink batt" thoughts would also be a good laugh.

 

[Hamster Huey]

I'm wondering HH.
1. Do you see greed and narrow self-interest as presenting a threat to humanity?
2. Do you see global warming as a threat to humanity?
3. To what extent do you see animals and other life forms as something to be treasured versus as objects to be used and farmed?
4. Do you have any interest in what happens on this planet after you're dead?
I'm not seeking a debate here or now, I'm only interested to know you a little better.

Self-interest and narrow views are everywhere, across the board. Money is as much a driver in the renewable space, as in the other self-interest areas. A clear look at the pro/cons should see most see that anything we do is irrelevent in the final solution; reducing climate change.

I don't see global warming as a threat to humanity. Climate changes and people adapt. I'd be far more concerned if we saw the climate shifting to a cooling trend.

Animals thrived/perished previously and often without our interference. I am far more concerned about the direct threats we pose to animals via deforestation, over fishing, over development and introduced species. Climate influences are often overstated to appeal to our compassionate side, with all sort of cute and (not so) cuddly animals paraded as the next extinction possibility. Many of these are half-arsed studies that appear to already have climate change as the answer, before they start looking; polar bears, hares, butterflies have all had a run and subsequent studies have found the initial claims misleading and/or false.

Of course I do. But I see the hundreds of billions wasted better spent on helping the less well off adapt, lifting poverty to improve health and education. An ETS/Carbon Tax will never drive the change we seek to ensure we can clean up our acts.