S. Lindsey's picture

Many people here confuse their OPINIONS and VIEWS with facts.. Their opinion and/or view may indeed be a fact; however facts have to be able to be proven and some basis other than an opinion and a belief..
”A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation or denial (Wikipedia)”
Let me explain.. Here is a fact..
"The Omnibus bill had over 8000 earmarks "special projects" imbedded in it"
This can be checked and substantiated from sources considered to be non-partisan..
The Argument angle LINK
Some there on that thread seemed to deny the fact that the Earmarks where there.. others attempted to obfuscate the issue with a series of minor details.. never really addressing the issue of the Earmarks themselves..
Arguing against or for a fact:
Now here is another example.. take the recent blog on tax reform..
The Tax Reform Debate Link
And again here…
The Tax Reform Debate 2 Link
Both threads here are interesting in and of itself.. not for the content.. but to show the contrasting points and counter points.
Now going back to the definition of the word FACT view there the differing points the Arguments against the points.. Note I said arguments not counter points.. Points are generally accepted as a fact if backed up with a proven base. Counter Points as well as points can also be fact, based on proven points.. The difference here is weight.. the weight of the argument balanced by the effectiveness of the Counter Point.. in other words Validity. If a point is issued as a fact.. it must have a valid source or universally known to be true.. i.e. “ The Earth is round” We can prove this to be true by looking at Satellite data or accept the universal truth. Simply saying the Earth is flat is not a Counter-point it is only an argument not based in fact..
How to Break an Argument
Let me explain Breaking the Argument.. When arguing a particular fact.. To break it you must do more than just dispute it or fail to agree.. You must present counter facts (points) with at least as much credibility (validity) as the original fact (point) carried.. In other words.. Argue that the data is incorrect and present data that directly disputes the original Point. Prove your point.. Just coming up with an example that the arguer presents as proof it will not work is only valid if a counter point cannot be offered..With as much validity as the original point.. Just because you disagree DOES NOT BREAK THE ARGUMENT.
Left vs Right
“A Political Ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used. Some parties follow a certain ideology very closely, while others may take broad inspiration from a group of related ideologies without specifically embracing any one of them.”(wikipedia)
We are often stuck inside a particular belief system.. an Ideology.. It can be both Moral and Ethical, Religious or Political.. We sometimes cling to the belief system and refuse to see outside the box that ideology puts us in.. We refuse to see other points of view and view differing points of view as being unworthy or without Merit and often attack the counter belief. When we do this we stifle discourse and debate and lose all opportunity to broaden our knowledge base.
Not all Ideologies are wrong.. Conversely not all are right either. We need to be better than the ideology that ties us to one set of beliefs and leaves no room for a counter point to even be considered..
Final Thoughts
Rather you are a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or some other affiliated or non-affiliated political or non political group. We are all facing tough times. We can dwell on was it the previous administration.. the one before it.. or is this one all we want..
The FACT is change is occurring. The question here is it the Right changes for the majority of us. Are we heading into the abyss or are we crawling out of the pit. I don’t know and I think no one does.. At least not yet.

S. Lindsey's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Wed, 04/01/2009 - 10:41am.

Let's see if you live by your own words, specifically, "Argue that the data is incorrect and present data that directly disputes the original Point."

I gave you a scenario in which I argued that, based on facts present in the HR25 legislation, people would spend a minimum of $1.22 under the so-called "fairtax" for every dollar they now spend on gasoline. I based my argument on the FACT that imported commodity items were adversely affected by the sales tax that the so-called "fairtax" would levy on imports. Even Ken Hoagland, the national communications director for fairtax organization agreed with me.

Yet you continued to hold to the fiction that there were sufficient "imbedded taxes" to make the price of oil "revenue neutral". You linked to a non-sequitur regarding gas taxation policy.

I then showed you that 73% of the cost basis of a gallon of gas had ABSOLUTELY NO "IMBEDDED TAXES" in them (58% cost of crude, 15% Federal Excise Tax = 73% total). Your response was to imply that the Federal Excise Tax would disappear. I then showed you the specific paragraph in the HR25 legislation that specifically keeps all Federal Excise Taxes in place....and you once again linked me to the same nebulous propaganda piece on the fairtax site.

Again: if 73% of your cost basis has no imbedded taxes, even in a best-case scenario the price will rise at least 22%. That's just simple math. If you have a counter-argument to my example that specifically refutes my math, I'd be more than welcome to discuss this with you.

I would submit that if you are going to lecture US on the necessity of distinguishing between facts and opinions, you examine the claims in your own writings first.

I, and I suspect a good majority of bloggers here, cannot begin to take you seriously until you do so.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Wed, 04/01/2009 - 12:34pm.

I am not after your approval..
You asked and I answered.. You gave your source, from jeff I might add, I gave mine..I presented documentation to prove my point.. you as of yet have not.. If you want to include the Boortz link.. you tried to show he was saying that payroll would not change when in your own "quote" he said it would increase..but somehow yours has more credibility??? You still have not broken the argument.. I am tired of the argument.. for me this ends this line of thought.. Thanks, however for participating in my blog it has indeed been informative..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.