For all who post on politics here frequently....

Have any of you ever had an opinion swayed based on what has been written?

I am just curious, since I am relatively new to the board. I like it beter than commenting on the articles directly since there tends to be less posts and I can make time to keep up!

yes, at one time I considered rightwingers ignorant of the facts ... ignorant meaning they simply didnt know ...

now, after reading their responses when presented with facts, THE FACTS apparently mean little or nothing to them and have no effect on their OPINIONS

having been swayed I consider them too stupid to be ignorant.

Have any of you ever had an opinion swayed based on what has been written?

I am just curious, since I am relatively new to the board. I like it beter than commenting on the articles directly since there tends to be less posts and I can make time to keep up! Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Yes absolutely! My opinion of liberals has changed. I used to think they were stupid. After reading the liberal posts on here, for several months, I now believe liberals are extremely stupid.

i really think its that liberals aren't stupid, they aren't, they are quite cunning and rapacious, they want things and they dont care long term about anything

i really think its that liberals aren't stupid, they aren't, they are quite cunning and rapacious, they want things and they dont care long term about anything Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I was kidding about all liberals being stupid. Many liberals are extremely smart. There's no doubt that Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Steve Jobs and many other liberals are brilliant. I think the thing that causes liberals to make bad choices and reach irrational conclusions is that liberals tend to be guided by emotion more than reason in their political decisions.

It's not that liberals lack the capacity to reason; it's more a matter of emotion overriding reason. I think this is why women, on average, are more liberal than men. Women are just as smart as men, but on average, they tend to be more emotional and consequently more liberal.

I have changed my opinion several times based on what I learned here. It's been awhile, but I the most recent change was in the Paul Revere discussion. I changed my mind, thanked the person who provided the information, and admitted it in the thread. The times before, I can't remember. They were awhile back.

I was kidding about all liberals being stupid. Many liberals are extremely smart. There's no doubt that Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Steve Jobs and many other liberals are brilliant. Originally Posted by joe bloe

my post had in mind the so-called Middle-Class liberal...the union member, the person who comes in and 9 and leaves at 5 and if its not in their job description well you get the picture...and the ones who really dont want to work at all and are all scam...

the rich liberal is in a protective mode.....they have and they want to protect it by scattering crumbs around to keep the peasants from an uprising....they are talk and theory and never a personal investment that would change their cat-bird seat

i really think its that liberals aren't stupid, they aren't, they are quite cunning and rapacious, they want things and they dont care long term about anything Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

You know in the end, we all die.

That is why I never understood why the greedy bastards care about inheritance. Welfare for the rich spoiled rotten kids is wtf I call it but that is for another thread.


Back to the question...according to the science( I know , my brothers on the right do not believe in science (until they're sick) ), anyway .according to the science liberals and conservatives have different things that they rank in importance. The one's on the far end of each spectrum will never change their mind. We folks closer to the middle can see the others POV. That is why the Tea Nuts will always be Nuts. They are wacked out there to far right of center.

It's not that liberals lack the capacity to reason; it's more a matter of emotion overriding reason. I think this is why . . Originally Posted by joe bloe

Did you read that BS in an e-mail?

Do you want me to provide you a book that debunks all that crap you just wrote? It uses brain research, so you might not believe in it.

Yes. WTF read a book. Hard to believe, I know. But that book answers every question. Just ask him. He read it. Really.

Yes. WTF read a book. Hard to believe, I know. But that book answers every question. Just ask him. He read it. Really. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I think it is a better way to learn than from mass e-mails...

http://neandergal.wordpress.com/2011...lieving-brain/


Filtering systems are another mechanism that filters out information that fails to match an idea or set of ideas because we naturally seek out information in the form of patterns that confirm and reinforces the belief or set of ideas; i.e., conformation bias. Shermer contends that the belief in elaborate conspiracy theories such as those of 9/11 truthers or the fans of a losing side of a sporting team are individuals whose “pattern-detection filters are wide open” Conspiracy theorists make patterns from randomness and add an agent such as the government in the case of 911 truthers, or a biased referee in the case of a losing team to add meaning or purpose to their claims. Shermer dismantles the conspiracy theories of holocaust deniers, 911 truthers and the assassination of John F. Kennedy by the CIA by highlighting the fallacious arguments given by conspiracy theorists and provides evidence for how these events unfolded without the agents of government. The list of cognitive biases described in the book read like a basic psychology course, but illustrate where we cognitively fall over in the way we view the world no matter how rational we perceive ourselves.
Shermer concludes by reiterating that science is a tool that can help control our filtering systems. It is not enough to argue from ignorance and apply an agent to what we don’t know or understand. We must require evidence using science as the tool to find answers to our questions. The burden of proof must lie with the person or group of people making a claim. Science has various mechanisms that help to identify and breakdown biases. Shermer describes how even the scientific method is not perfect, but it is the best tool yet for understanding the natural world

Both the extreme left and right are unable to give a inch,so anything the other believes is considered bullshit by the other,and nothing will change their minds,and each can show FACTS to support their claim.

Right is Right. GOD does not live in my head. Good Luck Fuckers...

I bet you never make a left hand turn when you are driving.

Both the extreme left and right are unable to give a inch,so anything the other believes is considered bullshit by the other,and nothing will change their minds,and each can show FACTS to support their claim. Originally Posted by ekim008

Interesting. Then how do you explain:

Obama was against drone strikes, now he's the drone strike king.
Obama was against "The Surge" and now he's for it.
Obama was adamant against violating a nation's sovereignty but not when it suits his purposes.
Obama was against indefinite retention without charges, now he's an indefinite retention motherfucker!

....There are many others.

But, to answer the original poster's question, yes, posters here do change their minds. I have it on good authority that BHO_1 and the Secret Service post here when Moochelle is on one of her midnight Haagan Daz runs.