Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2018 22:55:03 GMT
Are you even reading and comprehending what I am trying to say here? Take a minute, read what I wrote about confirmation bias and reflect that back to me. We are having a failure to communicate. You are digressing from the source of the topic, in order to avoid the essence of the pov. Where is the comprehension issue stemming from and what is the failure of the comprehension you feel is being ignored regarding the bias of the military with republican\right wing dominance? Sigh. I honestly am just trying to point out the incredible bias and fallacy of your entire premise and your willingness to jump on evidence that supports your opinion while challenging an article I know you wouldn't agree with. I'm not even a Republican. If you want to go with: "Violence leads me to militants leads me to military leads me to Republicans therefore Republicans tend to be more violent" Then have at it. You have an interesting command of logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 27, 2018 23:17:08 GMT
You are digressing from the source of the topic, in order to avoid the essence of the pov. Where is the comprehension issue stemming from and what is the failure of the comprehension you feel is being ignored regarding the bias of the military with republican\right wing dominance? Sigh. I honestly am just trying to point out the incredible bias and fallacy of your entire premise and your willingness to jump on evidence that supports your opinion while challenging an article I know you wouldn't agree with. I'm not even a Republican. If you want to go with: "Violence leads me to militants leads me to military leads me to Republicans therefore Republicans tend to be more violent" Then have at it. You have an interesting command of logic. Where is the bias and fallacy in asking if 'mostly' military persons or those of a militant nature are republicans? Where is the bias and fallacy in feeling that most military personnel are republican\right wing supporters? Are they?
By claiming you are not Republican, what point are you attempting to make here? Are you saying that you are pro-defense force? This is a simple yes or no answer.
You are now attempting to associate individual crimes a person commits—when you can't even claim of the crimes—based on a paper thin news article, by claiming that violent behavior isn't just born out of Republican values. I agree here, but you do realize that those that do commit violent crimes autonomously and ARE NOT associated with the defense force, is largely born out of socio-economic and environment issues? Those that are poor and uneducated are most likely to follow a political persuasion that is going to either be on the side of those that have their own best interests at heart as in liberal\left wing. Some may even join the military for discipline they need at an external level vocational security and to learn new skills. This could also be born out of desperation and even ignorance though.
I feel the main issue then is the 'dualistic' mindset\nature of humans and this won't necessarily have a political persuasion. However, does the dualistic mindset in the west, have more of a tendency or lean towards right wing politics and that includes the military?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 0:00:23 GMT
Nora, please take a look at my interactions here with this thread, especially today, and see where I am obviously failing to make my point. I'm asking this since you seem to have a decent command of how to make a point, and have participated in this thread earlier. If you see the point I'm trying to make, maybe you can help me enunciate it, honestly. If not, feel free to ask questions, or tell me I am full of poo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 0:07:32 GMT
Nora , please take a look at my interactions here with this thread, especially today, and see where I am obviously failing to make my point. I'm asking this since you seem to have a decent command of how to make a point, and have participated in this thread earlier. If you see the point I'm trying to make, maybe you can help me enunciate it, honestly. If not, feel free to ask questions, or tell me I am full of poo. Why are you asking for reinforcements, isn't that a sign of defeat or desperation? If you can't understand or convey your own point lucidly, what makes you think Nora would understand?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 0:10:49 GMT
Nora , please take a look at my interactions here with this thread, especially today, and see where I am obviously failing to make my point. I'm asking this since you seem to have a decent command of how to make a point, and have participated in this thread earlier. If you see the point I'm trying to make, maybe you can help me enunciate it, honestly. If not, feel free to ask questions, or tell me I am full of poo. Why are you asking for reinforcements, isn't that a sign of defeat or desperation? If you can't understand or convey your own point lucidly, what makes you think Nora would understand? I am failing to convey my thoughts here to you. Sometimes fresher eyes will understand and possibly provide a better way to word what I am trying to convey. I don't want reinforcements, I need an interpreter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 0:28:06 GMT
Why are you asking for reinforcements, isn't that a sign of defeat or desperation? If you can't understand or convey your own point lucidly, what makes you think Nora would understand? I am failing to convey my thoughts here to you. Sometimes fresher eyes will understand and possibly provide a better way to word what I am trying to convey. I don't want reinforcements, I need an interpreter. Not to mention you have avoided answering my direct questions put to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 0:34:38 GMT
I am failing to convey my thoughts here to you. Sometimes fresher eyes will understand and possibly provide a better way to word what I am trying to convey. I don't want reinforcements, I need an interpreter. Not to mention you have avoided answering my direct questions put to you. If we can get the conversation on the rails maybe all questions will be answered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 0:37:46 GMT
Not to mention you have avoided answering my direct questions put to you. If we can get the conversation on the rails maybe all questions will be answered. Whose rails are you referring too? Yours appear to need more maintenance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 0:48:35 GMT
If we can get the conversation on the rails maybe all questions will be answered. Whose rails are you referring too? Yours appear to need more maintenance. Look, I can't convey to you why I posted the link to the article today, no matter how hard I try. I'm trying to explain my intent. You are fixating on the content, that I am trying to make a point that the content has some value to this whole thread. It doesn't. It has to do with how people take information willingly that reinforces beliefs, and question information that contradicts them. But I just have the feeling you will still see this as I have some opinion about Democrats and crime because I chose this as my example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 0:54:01 GMT
Whose rails are you referring too? Yours appear to need more maintenance. Look, I can't convey to you why I posted the link to the article today, no matter how hard I try. I'm trying to explain my intent. You are fixating on the content, that I am trying to make a point that the content has some value to this whole thread. It doesn't. It has to do with how people take information willingly that reinforces beliefs, and question information that contradicts them. But I just have the feeling you will still see this as I have some opinion about Democrats and crime because I chose this as my example. What information has contradicted me? You don't appear to have an answer. If you did, you would express it concisely and clearly and lucidly to make your point valid. You have posted 2 links, one that reinforced my argument and one that then attempts to contradict your own vague stance, because it wasn't relevant to the point at hand. I have already expressed why.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 28, 2018 0:59:37 GMT
Nora , please take a look at my interactions here with this thread, especially today, and see where I am obviously failing to make my point. I'm asking this since you seem to have a decent command of how to make a point, and have participated in this thread earlier. If you see the point I'm trying to make, maybe you can help me enunciate it, honestly. If not, feel free to ask questions, or tell me I am full of poo. sounds exciting. sometimes I do miss my former profession so let me go through these last few pages (I have not followed your conversation with Toasted Cheese) and see what jumps out at me. Ill try to review points both sides are trying to make and see how they conflict/compare. To be transparent: I do have a friendly IMDB association with Toasted Cheese, however I will attempt to look at this as if I was Switzerland  I shall revert back to both parties on this tomorrow. For now I must revert back to Patrick Melrose who is expecting me with a previously logged request for my attention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 1:04:50 GMT
Nora , please take a look at my interactions here with this thread, especially today, and see where I am obviously failing to make my point. I'm asking this since you seem to have a decent command of how to make a point, and have participated in this thread earlier. If you see the point I'm trying to make, maybe you can help me enunciate it, honestly. If not, feel free to ask questions, or tell me I am full of poo. sounds exciting. sometimes I do miss my former profession so let me go through these last few pages (I have not followed your conversation with Toasted Cheese) and see what jumps out at me. Ill try to review points both sides are trying to make and see how they conflict/compare. To be transparent: I do have a friendly IMDB association with Toasted Cheese, however I will attempt to look at this as if I was Switzerland  I shall revert back to both parties on this tomorrow. For now I must revert back to Patrick Melrose who is expecting me with a previously logged request for my attention. Thanks. I'm glad you have a friendly relationship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 28, 2018 1:05:27 GMT
Look, I can't convey to you why I posted the link to the article today, no matter how hard I try. I'm trying to explain my intent. You are fixating on the content, that I am trying to make a point that the content has some value to this whole thread. It doesn't. It has to do with how people take information willingly that reinforces beliefs, and question information that contradicts them. But I just have the feeling you will still see this as I have some opinion about Democrats and crime because I chose this as my example. What information has contradicted me? You don't appear to have an answer. If you did, you would express it concisely and clearly and lucidly to make your point valid. You have posted 2 links, one that reinforced my argument and one that then attempts to contradict your own vague stance, because it wasn't relevant to the point at hand. I have already expressed why. Go back and read his link. The link has not contradicted his stance but your stance.
The study in his link criticised another past study which was based on propaganda. Unfortunately, you were not careful enough to pick that and instead of examining the the survey presented by study conducted in his link you quoted the study that was being criticised in his link.
I will make your work short by quoting relevant part of his link that depicts study by political science experts who have no apparent bias.
Only 32 percent of Army soldiers consider themselves Republicans Army is less Partisan than civilians.
That's not overwhelming support for republicans among military. 32% isn't even 1/3rd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 1:12:29 GMT
Look, I can't convey to you why I posted the link to the article today, no matter how hard I try. I'm trying to explain my intent. You are fixating on the content, that I am trying to make a point that the content has some value to this whole thread. It doesn't. It has to do with how people take information willingly that reinforces beliefs, and question information that contradicts them. But I just have the feeling you will still see this as I have some opinion about Democrats and crime because I chose this as my example. What information has contradicted me? You don't appear to have an answer. If you did, you would express it concisely and clearly and lucidly to make your point valid. You have posted 2 links, one that reinforced my argument and one that then attempts to contradict your own vague stance, because it wasn't relevant to the point at hand. I have already expressed why. Maybe we will get help with this tomorrow. I'm just really trying to make a point about readily accepting information in one case and questioning it in another. Maybe the proper words put together to avoid fixation on things other than the point I am trying, in vain, to communicate will help.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 1:21:21 GMT
What information has contradicted me? You don't appear to have an answer. If you did, you would express it concisely and clearly and lucidly to make your point valid. You have posted 2 links, one that reinforced my argument and one that then attempts to contradict your own vague stance, because it wasn't relevant to the point at hand. I have already expressed why. Go back and read his link. The link has not contradicted his stance but your stance.
The study in his link criticised another past study which was based on propaganda. Unfortunately, you were not careful enough to pick that and instead of examining the the survey presented by study conducted in his link you quoted the study that was being criticised in his link.
I will make your work short by quoting relevant part of his link that depicts study by political science experts who have no apparent bias.
Only 32 percent of Army soldiers consider themselves Republicans Army is less Partisan than civilians.
That's not overwhelming support for republicans among military. 32% isn't even 1/3rd.
Whose propaganda? Are those leading\ruling the defense force Republican? There is NO propaganda coming from within the cogs, only those that are feeding it down from the top to feed the herd. The defense force will consist of a variety of political arenas—which is just ideal—as I have already addressed and regardless of who one supports, the ideal of being behind a defense force is still one more of a militant mindset, which is stilly 'mostly' right\conservative wing value, regardless of whether one identifies it as such or not.
And where did I say overwhelming?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 1:22:42 GMT
What information has contradicted me? You don't appear to have an answer. If you did, you would express it concisely and clearly and lucidly to make your point valid. You have posted 2 links, one that reinforced my argument and one that then attempts to contradict your own vague stance, because it wasn't relevant to the point at hand. I have already expressed why. Maybe we will get help with this tomorrow. I'm just really trying to make a point about readily accepting information in one case and questioning it in another. Maybe the proper words put together to avoid fixation on things other than the point I am trying, in vain, to communicate will help. What makes that first link accurate and fact?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 28, 2018 1:26:20 GMT
Go back and read his link. The link has not contradicted his stance but your stance.
The study in his link criticised another past study which was based on propaganda. Unfortunately, you were not careful enough to pick that and instead of examining the the survey presented by study conducted in his link you quoted the study that was being criticised in his link.
I will make your work short by quoting relevant part of his link that depicts study by political science experts who have no apparent bias.
Only 32 percent of Army soldiers consider themselves Republicans Army is less Partisan than civilians.
That's not overwhelming support for republicans among military. 32% isn't even 1/3rd.
Whose propaganda? Are those leading\ruling the defense force Republican? There is NO propaganda coming from within the cogs, only those that are feeding it down from the top to feed the herd. The defense force will consist of a variety of political arenas—which is just ideal—as I have already addressed and regardless of who one supports, the ideal of being behind a defense force is still one more of a militant mindset, which is stilly 'mostly' right\conservative wing value, regardless of whether one identifies it as such or not.
And where did I say overwhelming? You have used the word mostly and some. That would not be 51-49 split. To prove your assertions you would have to prove substantially more support for Republicans among military than among general population. And why are you using the word 'militant' mindset. I already showed you militants exists on both sides. So it is another case where you set faulty premise and try to debate on that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 1:32:55 GMT
Maybe we will get help with this tomorrow. I'm just really trying to make a point about readily accepting information in one case and questioning it in another. Maybe the proper words put together to avoid fixation on things other than the point I am trying, in vain, to communicate will help. What makes that first link accurate and fact? I'm really at a loss to understand your question. Is it rhetorical, or did my statement lead you to ask a question about the validity of the first link? It was just a link to an article about a study, as was the second one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 1:37:07 GMT
Whose propaganda? Are those leading\ruling the defense force Republican? There is NO propaganda coming from within the cogs, only those that are feeding it down from the top to feed the herd. The defense force will consist of a variety of political arenas—which is just ideal—as I have already addressed and regardless of who one supports, the ideal of being behind a defense force is still one more of a militant mindset, which is stilly 'mostly' right\conservative wing value, regardless of whether one identifies it as such or not.
And where did I say overwhelming? You have used the word mostly and some. That would not be 51-49 split. To prove your assertions you would have to prove substantial more support for Republicans among military than among general population. And why are you using the word 'militant' mindset. I already showed you militants exists on both sides. So it is another case where you set faulty premise and try to debate on that.
This is quoted in the start of the article: So then, if there are a large percentage of those that are grunts in the defense force have no political persuasion, but those that are the leaders are 'mostly\predominantly' conservative, don't you feel a militant nature is also relevant to the point as to why those with a dualistic nature join the defense force, regardless of political ideals or status within the ranks? Military and militant are NOT mutually exclusive of each other. They go hand in hand. Is violent behavior on an autonomous and individual nature—which I have already addressed—relative to militant behaviour?
'militant'
Define
adj. Fighting or warring. adj. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist. n. A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 1:45:12 GMT
What makes that first link accurate and fact? I'm really at a loss to understand your question. Is it rhetorical, or did my statement lead you to ask a question about the validity of the first link? It was just a link to an article about a study, as was the second one. So within those studies— in which the validity and accuracy of them can also be questioned, just like any stats. They are not an absolute—what is the exact and lucid point you are attempting to express about the conservative mindset being militant, and those with militant ideals that join the defense force, regardless of their political persuasion? Doesn't it all come down to the notion of belief and why one feels they need to defend others and for what ultimate cause? You can treat this as rhetorical question, or you can give feed me something new that I can work with to understand your stance on what you think militant is.
|
|