Tolerance - Some Have it Some Don't

Hi Tim,
well, Im glad I happened to be on the mistake list...boy am I happy this came to me. Im a concerned citizen and well agree with your comments and take on the direction this wonderful nation is taking. Our leaders have separated from the whole and are now rewriting our demise from the constituion and freedoms we all have rights to. I signed up for the email list and will joyfully continue to read and be a part of discussion.
Thank you,
for caring and voicing your opinions and opening this opportunity for all to share and think critically and responsibily.
Robin

Hey Tim,

Thanks for making the big mistake! Count me among your new members of the Fire PIt! I am not happy about the direction our great country is headed. I'm a Centrist who believes that the government should protect us from our enemies, but stay the hell out of our private lives.

Mr. Carter,
As one of your new accidental subscribers I have been playing catch-up by reading your past posts. I find them to be much in tune with my thinking. I have gathered that you have recently relocated to the "Live Free or Die State". I am hoping that you will soon share your reasoning for making the move to New Hampshire.

Tim,
Thanks you for your slight mistake. I would not have found this blog otherwise. As a former resident of New Hampshire, the Granite state could use many more patriots like yourself. Keep up the good work. I'm playing catchup on your previous entries!

Having been born,raised and live in the San Francisco Bay Area I have an insiders view of the oh so intolerant tolerance movement. Free speech is only free if you agree with the Pied Pipers of propaganda. A different opinion is not taken lightly, if at all.
I luckily escaped the brain washing by watching what people did instead of said. Listening to different sides of an issue or story before forming an opinion. Asking who "They" are when someone says "They say". I thank my dad for that advise.
Becoming self-employed at 18 years old also helped. I think if everybody had to write a quarterly check to the IRS and actually have their money in hand before they hand it over that there would be thousands more informed taxpayers.
And a lot less tolerance for those who make a mockery the word tolerant.

Tim,
Count me as another who is appreciative of your software glitch. From mistake to miracle.........you have connected with an addendum of followers/fans who would not have otherwise gotten the message. As a recent subscriber to AsktheBuilder, I look forward to your posts. The results of the November election give me reason to be positive about correcting the mess created in Washington.......by both parties. As a former small business owner, I agree completely with Rob Lee about writing quarterly checks to the IRS. The required withholding rules have put the nation to sleep about how much we pay in taxes.

I hope everyone reads this post, but I'm specifically writing to Skippy.

Skip, I understand where you are coming from. I am one of the people who frequently - though not always, disagrees with Tim. He and I have had "words" in several sets of posts on various past threads here.

While I continue to disagree with some of his political views, I have to say that he has never deleted any of my posts. He allows freedom of expression here.

I will also add, I try to keep the dialog respectful and non-abusive. I never curse and mostly don't use derogatory words about people - although I have once or twice done that, and it's a mistake on my part.

We should all be tolerant of each other's opinions. Tim has given me a couple of tongue lashings here; but that's okay, I can take it. :) If I believe in what I say, and I do, it just gives me more energy to articulate my position as clearly as possible.

If you site factual references to back up your opinions, your opinions have more validity. I try to do that most of the time. If people are honest with themselves and care about knowing the truth, they will check out the references I list and hopefully give the information serious consideration. I do the same for other people who list references for their points of view, even if I disagree with them. I can do no less if I want them to do the same for me.

For those who don't bother reading and considering both sides of an argument, they are doing themselves and this country a disservice. But as the old saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

It's all about mutual respect, and being honest with oneself.

Here is an example of how I operate. I have stated in several posts here that Fox News in general, and Glenn Beck in particular, gives out a lot of mis-information and gives a distored view of the truth. I have found that many people here watch Fox News, based on what they say. From my experience, people who watch Fox News - watch it exclusively and don't watch any other source of news. It's a mistake, in my opinion.

I can back up that claim by listing this reference to a recent study:

http://www.alternet.org/media/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid/

While the article in the above reference is itself opinionated, the article does site the actual study, which is also worth reading:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=

Skip, I concur with your position. I just don't want to give our country up to narrow-minded and disingenuous extremists without a fight, so I continue to post here with the hope that some people will be honest with themselves and become open minded to facts and logic.

I have to amend something I said in my previous comment. I would edit it out and change it, but this blog does not allow you to re-edit a post, which is unfortunate.

I repeated Skip's term - narrow-minded. I shouldn't have said that, because now Tim will pounce on that statement, saying how I'm disrespecting his customers, etc. To some extent, that's true. If someone calls me narrow-minded, I might get defensive as well. So I take it back.

But, it gives Tim an "in" to employ a diversionary tactic used frequently by far-right conservatives, which is to introduce trivial or red-herrings issues that take focus away from the really important information.

So instead of discussing the data on the serious topics, we end up talking about relatively banal issues. Meanwhile, Rome burns.

Good job, conservatives, of helping take everyone's eye off the ball.

Lou,Lou, Skip to my Lou.
Lou,Lou, to Skip and to Lou,

Lighten up!

The smart money says you gentlemen live in my neck of the woods. Berkeley is my guess but it could be within a 50 mile radius of that bastion of free speech and thinking. Ground zero for all things diverse and tolerant. The place Mother Earth safely resides and fiercely guards the Trust Tree where all opinions are respected and religions honored. Where all cultures are accepted and nurtured. Where critical thinking is the norm.

...............unless of course you are Christian, White, self-employed, know that critical thought doesn't mean to criticize, know some truth and aren't fooled into beliefs just because "they say" it.
Having lived and worked for 53 years among liberals I don't think they are the one's filled with the poison, hate and intolerance,
I know it, I live with it, I was one when I didn't know who I was. I literally thank God that I kept questioning and researching outside of choir practice.

We have been abandoned by all in Washington.

I'd love to see a new political party in the US.

How about the Convertibel party.

It does have a nice ring to it.

To Skip: "Us and Them". Exactly. I've said that same thing in a previous thread here a while back. I'm glad that someone else sees it. :)

Skippy,
I am glad that you found this blog and it is interesting to read your point of view. I am sad that Stephanie has decided to leave. She also brought a fresh point of view to the table as well.

I agree with a lot of what you have to say but my real passion is getting our national debt and deficit under control and making our elected officials govern and not just posture for the next election. If you are interested in holding our officials accountable to govern you might want to check out

http://nolabels.org/

Anyway, I look forward to your further thoughts.
I am sad that Stephanie has decided to leave. She also brought a fresh point of view to the table as well.

Please disregard the duplicate last sentance... It was a software glitch

Ostracized? In Berkeley? No Skippy, but different and lucky comes to mind. Happy and positive is how I felt if I could make one of my liberal friends or family members at least listen and maybe just agree to disagree without going into a tizzy or a name calling froth.
Instead of the tired and stalemated lib vs. con. discourse Tim has, as is appropriate in times of struggle and upheaval, drawn the line between patriots and enemies of the state. Surely we can agree that both liberals and conservatives can be patriots as both can be the subversives. Can't we?
History has been all about wars and the rise and fall of great and not-so great societies, cultures and nations.
We no longer teach our children about the history that would show that our Country is the culmination of centuries of the human desire and the fight for freedom. We are dangerously letting our guard down as no other strong country in history has done before without being conquered.
The last two generations of Americans have not had to fear another country looming or threatening to conquer or kill them. I would suggest there has never been another generation in history or on Earth that has enjoyed such a blessing. But if they don't know it's a blessing it could become a deadly curse.

But hey, that's just the way I see it.

To John C. Who is Stephanie? I don't see any comments from a Stephanie on this particular thread (unless I missed it).

Also, I like your software glitch statement. Very funny. :) I've been on this blog long enough to be skeptical of Tim's "glitch". It's possible of course, but I've seen other fortuitous "mistakes" from Tim's AskTheBuilder newsletter. I have no problem with anyone making money. It's the dishonesty that bothers me. But again, I don't know the facts here, so it's just an opinion.

To John Selig, I'm not from Berkeley, although I believe I am there spiritually. :) I'm from the Philadelphia area, land of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. What's interesting about Philly is that, people who grow up here tend to stay here and live their whole lives in this area. Why? Because it's a nice place to live.

So, back to politics, , :) , I believe the big issue we need to deal with immediately is the debt ceiling. Some zealots are going to say that we should not increase it. But that would be a huge mistake. I'd like our host Tim to bring up this subject in a new, separate thread. I suspect that a reasoned discussion on the topic is beyond the limit of most people's bandwidth on this blog, but we'll see. It's important enough that I'm willing to endure the superficial comments that are bound to be expressed by some people.

I just came across an interesting note that descibes, very well in my opinion, the kinds of fallacious arguments you see in politics. I think that these types of arguments are used more by the right than the left, but they are definitely used frequently by all polticial persuasions.

They are:
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to emotion
Appeal to consequence

Description of Appeal to Ridicule

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

Description of Appeal to Emotion

An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:

Favorable emotions are associated with X.
Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.

This sort of "reasoning" is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of modern advertising.

Description of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:

X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.
X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.
X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.
I wish that X were true, therefore X is true. This is known as Wishful Thinking.
I wish that X were false, therefore X is false. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. For example, if someone were to say "If sixteen-headed purple unicorns don't exist, then I would be miserable, so they must exist"; it is clear that this would not be a good line of reasoning.

I'm sorry to sound like a broken record but having lived and studied the habits and skewed (in my opinion) reasoning (note I don't mention thinking) of the liberal minds of my family (not all)and most of my friends I can honestly say the three strikes against Critical Thinking you have described are the Wishful and Pack Thinking that make up the majority of uninformed liberal minds.
The lack of information from neutral sources like the joke "fox-news-makes-you-stupid" one of you blowhards listed is the proof in the pudding.
Emotional Ridiculing Wishful Thinking is how I would describe it.
I know, I was one but I grew tired of sounding stupid when I couldn't identify the "they" in the worn out "they say...."
As the silent, pony-tailed, businessman of the year in Oakland, CA (1960's) and unannounced conservative who was my father told me.

"Watch what they do, not what "they say"

To Mr Selig. The "blowhard" you refer to is me. It would have been easy enough for you to look back and find out, but no matter. :)

I listed that website, which as I already said, is an opinionated response to the actual study, which can be found here: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=

Did you read the study? It's not a joke.

In terms of the fallacies piece, which I did not create, I have found that the first two fallacies are fairly accurate. I have read many articles from Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and other far-right zealots. They often use mockery in place of hard evidence to make their points.

And you find that okay? Or, do you disagree that they are using ridicule instead of facts? Or do I misunderstand what you're saying?

Sometimes it's difficult to follow conversations in blogs like this.

John Selig, I'm definitely interested in your response, but I'm also moving on to another topic I think is important, and which deserves our attention: Fixing our aging infrastructure.

Here is a decent article on the topic I submit to you all, with the hope that some of you will read it and at least begin to contemplate the issue.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2627

Debt ceiling; future power generation; infrastructure; education. These are some of the biggest issues we will face in the next few years, and we should be focusing on solving them, rather than claiming "our most important issue to make sure President Obama ia a one-term president" kind of thing, and pointing fingers at each other.

This from gold medal finger pointers, wow!

I think the "study" is a bunch of tripe Skippy/Lou, I can easily post right wing views and have you two go on for another 10 pages about how slanted or biased it is. The original "study" was taken from a large swath of 858 people.....by a bunch of lib college students and their worthless tenured professors

Here is an overview of the "scientific" study;

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

WTF!!!!!!!!

WHO GIVES A HOOT ABOUT ECONOMISTS AND SCIENTISTS THEORIES ABOUT THINGS THAT "NEED MORE RESEARCH"!

What they want is more more money and the Chicken Little's are more than happy to fund these pin-head leeches while Rome burns.

Here are the articles following the one about the JOKE Fox-will-make-you-stupid study

*We're Hip to the Dangers of Lead and Asbestos in Old Buildings, But We're Only Just Getting Wise to the Risks Posed by PCBs

The Soy and Other 'Natural' Food Products in Your Cabinet May Contain a Dangerous Neurotoxin

8 Condom Commandments for Women (and Men, Too)

Food Emergency: Millions of Americans Are Heading to Food-banks for the First Time in Their Lives

AND AFTER ALL THAT FEAR MONGERING, THIS

Study: Conservatives Have Larger 'Fear Centers' in Their Brains

Rrrrriiiiggghhhtttt........................................Anything you say there Chicken Little

WTF is right John. You're a wacky guy. Where is Tim's censorship when you need it? . . . :)

"Chicken Little"? Have you ever watched Glenn Beck? He does that for a living 24/7.

"Worthless tenured professors"? . . . Okay, I think we know why California is the way it is. Thanks for playing our game. Don't call us, we'll call you. Don't forget to turn the lights out before you take off in your space ship and take your next toke.

Next contestant please.

Lou,
Stephanie had some lengthy back and forth with Tim in the Aoyette post. She explains her positions very well.

PS: I am going to give Tim the benefit of the doubt on what happened. But "software glitch"?? That's right up there with "wardrobe malfunction" and "I never inhaled".

I know why California is the way it is lou and so does everybody else reading this post and if I caused you two whiners any trouble then I have succeeded.
If you and skip think worldpublicopinions.org is unbiased then so is the John Birch Society.
How embarrassing it must be for you two crybabies to have your sources (both of them) exposed for the absolute liberal pap they spew. It seems the longer the sources name is or as good as it makes libs feel the more you stiffs fall for it. You should have went off on another tangent instead.
I did sight your unbiased (my ass)website about the studies murky methodology skip but I'm sure you wouldn't dare. But here it is for you in blowhard speak from a previous rant.
And I quote

"Favorable emotions are associated with X.
Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy."

All that from the Horses ass ....uuuhh I mean mouth.

You can pull your pants back up there boys and go back to the dugout
You're looking pretty silly

By the way Skip to my Lou I read my news and don't watch tv for my information. It exercises the brain but I'm not sure it would help that arrested development that plagues you libs. And what is this viagra bender you guys are on for Glenn Beck? Why don't you just listen to a sucessful lib commentator instead?
Oh yeah. you don't have one.

Batter up

Hmmm, I'm just catching up here today (Jan 10). Tim's software glitch is plausible with complex software packages, particularly he is tired, get distracted by something, or for a split second, just wasn't paying attention. My CAD system can play games on my head if I neglect a single kind of mouse click! Even though I have been using it for years, one second's inattention and something is deleted, moved or otherwise messed up.

I appreciated Lou's list of fallacious thinking practices, even though I probably won't agree with him politically. He has hit several nails on the head. Everyone has played these "reasons" games on other people, or even on ourselves, and occasionally we have the self-awareness to laugh at it. There are books out that expand on these themes, though I can't recall the titles. Google search will turn many up.

I would add to his list "Ad hominem" attacks ("to the man" in Latin). These "arguments" so-called are cases where people slip to ridicule when they sense they are losing an argument, when citing sources or using logic, examples or documented evidence appear to have no power to persuade their opponents. **Sometimes** ridicule is deserved when some objection or claim can be documented (!) as irrational, silly, irresponsible or not factual. Trouble is, who has time to ferret out every bit of ridicule to see if it is deserved? "Ad hominem" arguments are also cheap -- no work, no thinking, no research, no reflection time, just mouth off some epithet and if you can "kill off" your opponent metaphorically, you've won! Right? (No, but . . .it feels good, and for the moment that's good enough . . . )

Ad hominem arguments are in use all over the country. There were plenty of ad hominem arguments aimed at Bush in the media --- silly parodies of personal foibles on Saturday Night Live, political cartoons (known for precise portraiture), and so forth, as if we don't all have peculiarities. One particular one that has been disproven again and again but still is thumped as gospel by Bush detractors is that "he lied" about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq as a reason to invade that nation. The facts are that practically every Western intelligence agency thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Bush relied on what his agencies told him. He wasn't an intelligence officer, and he isn't clairvoyant. After Hussein was captured, I saw an interview where he stated that he actually didn't have WMDs, but he wanted the world to **think** he did, because he was afraid Iran would invade Iraq if word to the contrary got out! In other words, Saddam successfully manipulated the CIA and many other nation's intelligence forces (and media). But it's too easy to just claim "Bush lied." Way back Vice Pres Quayle was parodied in the papers for misspelling "potato" with an "e" on the end-- as if we don't see far worse examples of horrible spelling and grammar in posts on the internet nowadays by those who no doubt would have been his "I'm better than you" critics! The subtle argument is "if the man can't spell potato correctly, he can't govern the country competently." You could substitute anything minor for "potato" and anything major for "govern the country" and you have a formula for a whole lot of blather in the media nowadays. Your doctor can't tie his necktie straight, therefore he is a bad heart surgeon . . . say wha'? This has infinite forms for the creatively abusive to use. I once heard that Abraham Lincoln could never get elected in modern times because his voice was too high and reedy-sounding! The movies all give him a deep "manly" voice that we like to associate with someone tall and historically influential. But there are no sound recordings of the man, just occasional written descriptions, which can still leave a lot to the [Hollywood] imagination. It's a sad commentary on the public's superficiality.

Newspapers and media are famous for exaggerated, sensationalized, inflammatory and misleading headlines and misplaced emphases on important matters. Their job is to sell advertising for as many papers or programs as they can get "eyes" for, and the best way to do that is stir up emotions, scream "FIRE" and see people rush to their papers or tv sets to find out what the fuss is about. Objectivity? Ri-i-i-ght. The media will tell the truth when it serves their purposes, and only so long as it serves their purposes. Much truth is laborious, inconvenient, time-consuming to follow, and often inconclusive, and it sometimes requires risky choices. Not comfortable for people in a rush who want everything in a Twitter sound bite. I wonder what part the media themselves play in inflaming the apparent demagoguery swamping our ears. I wonder how often congressmen and senators find themselves trapped by "gotcha" reporters always looking for something salacious to sell. Are "the media" really interested in good government, or just "gotcha" reporting? What's the honest truth here? Fox and MSNBC? The hot air over Global Warming (gee, maybe the argument causes global warming?:-) is very instructive. Don't agree with the claim, even if you're a prominent scientist or a well-read layman? You'll get treated with skepticism at least, and probably derision ("ad hominem" arguments) by those who have made up their minds, probably out of fear of global catastrophe. Truth is there is a lot of wiggle room in many kinds of records when it comes to this issue. But the qualified detractors are swept aside in the great crusade to save the planet, save mankind!

A last thing: Probably the biggest divide between "liberals" and "conservatives" boils down to "how to help the poor (or whoever can be described as "needing" something). The conservative would say this is a job for the people to work out individually or by private self-governing associations relying on private donations of time, materials and funds (e.g. churches, medical societies, families, local orgs, etc.), In their view it is not the national government's job to take over these functions, politicize them and throw tax money at them. In the old days, taking tax money to do charity work would have been considered unethical. Many presidents vetoed bills to help people hurt by hurricanes and earthquakes, because charity was not the government's constitutional business --- national defense and administration of law were. Charity is voluntary, taxes are not. "Liberals" seem to think government's job is to "take care of people" and it is therefore perfectly legitimate to take money from someone else by force through taxation to give it to some "poor" or "needy" person, as though local people are either incompetent, uncaring, ungenerous or irresponsible compared to liberals lofty goals. Conservatives are routinely called "uncaring" by liberals ("Ad hominem" arguments here?) if they won't vote for give-away programs. It's good for electioneering bashing. As I understand it, the conservative isn't at all against helping poor people -- legions of conservatives are very active in charities -- they just don't believe *tax money* should be used for such things. Perhaps they sense an enormous conflict of interest --- if you receive government benefits, should you be able to vote? It is axiomatic that if you sit on a board you cannot vote for projects from which you might benefit financially. Congressmen and senators have to sell all their stocks and bonds or put them in blind trusts, since they may vote on bills that affect the businesses they have invested in. But it's okay to let the "poor person" vote in state and national elections for someone who has control over poverty programs, Medicare, and much else of direct personal benefit? I don't get it. But if a politician raised this third-rail issue, guaranteed riots in the streets, distorted media coverage, and talking-head mouth-foaming. I can hear it now, "They're out to deny the vote to people!" Sometimes I think the idea is to get everyone hooked on government benefits, so no one dare bring this issue up! "Everyone" becomes guilty, and therefore it's okay to do it. This is another corrupt kind of argument -- "everybody does it" -- that I wish Lou had brought up.

On the other hand, don't think politicians in Congress aren't influenced by lobbyists and others to vote for/against business interests when it comes to laws, regulations, taxes, employment and so forth!! Sometimes there are legitimate matters of law, economic issues or public health and safety issues involved, but how easy is it to separate that from the lust to get re-elected? I sometimes think this whole rat-nest of conflict-of-interest could be partly addressed by making all senators and representatives one-term people. No careerists, no re-election temptations. (That has it's drawbacks with today's immense government complications, however.) Liberals are famous for grabbing headlines as "the good guys," and to me it sounds faintly messianic -- vote for us, we will stop poverty, injustice and disease! Don't look now, but the death rate in this nation is 100%. Always will be!

The current rat-nest surrounding health care is partly driven by pre-existing laws, court cases, politics which I doubt if "Obamacare" solves. As a self-employed person, insurance premiums for myself and my wife exceed our mortgage payments, and that's with very high deductibles. I recently had cataract surgery -- the doc charged me $966.17 because I paid cash. If my insurance had covered it (costs for the whole procedure and everyone involved were way below the deductible) he would have charged $2,500. Can you blame me if I think the whole health-care "industry" is a huge racket that ought to be dismantled from the ground up and rebuilt? Looks to me like I'm paying to insure the insurance company and its investors, not my health. The business interests all want to make big money off "taking care of me" and the liberals all want to "take care of me" -- what is going to happen to my wallet in the meantime? or my health too? just a couple of questions . . .

Thanks for reading.