To strengthen someone's opinion, simply say it's based on morality

Status
Not open for further replies.
In which case... god help us all.

If it was localized, one might be able to confine and understand it, but if not.... I think the worst possible thing at this point is if you now tell me you're Australian.
Please don't tell me that? Please tell me you're a fuckin' Pom or something?

look, I'll even use a smiley...

:(... wtf, there isn't even one that applies. Closest I could come up with.
Make do.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Perhaps it is localized. At the sending end, not the receiving end. :D
Click to expand...
Am I to assume I'm the sender?
Shit man, I'm not going to deny a certain amount of nostalgic bias if so.

You know, it really isn't all that logical to dismiss the complaints of old folks simply because they're old.
Sometimes, if you listen closely... there be gold in all that waffle.
 
iceaura said:
Perhaps a flashlight: Retribution has been posting responses, in other threads, to other matters, in which they (gender neutral singular) disparage other people's responses (which is what such posters do in lieu of argument etc) as founded in morality and therefore weak.

Now somebody posts research establishing that people who are informed that their views are founded in morality are strengthened in them, rather than weakened.

Then three assumptions swing into action: the general public here has been following that exchange with care and attention; the poster he has been addressing can be taken to have been reading his posts as information, as having been "told" something by them - that such was the role of those posts; that the posts had footing and meaning to begin with and have been thereby wrongfooted in some humorous and meaningful manner.

Which is all echoes from the walls of a garbage can with few occupants - possibly only one, two at the most. No need to open and investigate - the truck is coming, and it's just a wingnut radio feed anyway.
Click to expand...
Ah. I see.
Basically your "flashlight" is illuminating something I conceded in my very first response... post #2. Which has nothing to do with the bit in brackets, mind you.
So now you're going to come in here and claim for your own what I've already self-mockingly stated.
Perhaps I should have filed a patent. Or some forum equivalent.
And then assume one might fit more than one person in a garbage can... perhaps as per "Megan is Missing".
Of course, Megans friends' screams were more due to the situation she found herself in at the hands of a seriously unhinged individual, rather than actually being forced to share that space.
Make sure you press the pause button on the rot, won't you.

As to this:
"Then three assumptions swing into action: the general public here has been following that exchange with care and attention; the poster he has been addressing can be taken to have been reading his posts as information, as having been "told" something by them - that such was the role of those posts; that the posts had footing and meaning to begin with and have been thereby wrongfooted in some humorous and meaningful manner."
Three assumptions....
1. I have no real idea. Been checking on who is reading what, but that only reveals two or three posters left watching anything at all.
2. Their own choice, and push come to shove, at the heart of the matter.
3. Not quite sure of your basis. I certainly thought they had meaning; if that was lost on subsequent replies it doesn't speak to me directly, now does it?

Having said that, I have a question for you.
What are you doing here?
 
Do you really think "she" was responding to the OP?

Very first line might indicate otherwise, even to the most casual of observers.
 
Ah well, I'm going to bed now. Long night.
We'll see what turns up here in the morning. I wonder if you know how depressing it is that I already have a fairly good idea of what it might be.

...even to the extent that, having said this, just now, it may be nothing at all.

Pity about Plasma's thread, really. I wonder where y'all gonna try to lay the blame for that.
 
Retribution said:
Ah well, I'm going to bed now. Long night.
We'll see what turns up here in the morning. I wonder if you know how depressing it is that I already have a fairly good idea of what it might be.
...even to the extent that, having said this, just now, it may be nothing at all.
Pity about Plasma's thread, really. I wonder where y'all gonna try to lay the blame for that.
Click to expand...
Safe to say then that you're pushing to get banned?

I haven't been following the other thread whereever, whatever it is. Just this one.
 
retribution said:
Basically your "flashlight" is illuminating something I conceded in my very first response... post #2.
Click to expand...
Uh, no, just filling in some context for those completely baffled by your posting in this thread.

Namely, the assumptions under which you post, which begin with the deluded presumption (either sincere or calculated) that you were making some kind of sense in the first place, back over on that other thread or earlier in some other discussion or wherever you are coming from this time.
retribution said:
Three assumptions....
1. I have no real idea. Been checking on who is reading what, but that only reveals two or three posters left watching anything at all.
Click to expand...
So universal bafflement is what you expected, and anticipated reacting to in your visible manner above? Seems a bit unkind to PI's thread.
retribution said:
2. Their own choice, and push come to shove, at the heart of the matter.
Click to expand...
No. You can't push off nothing. Newton.
retribution said:
3. Not quite sure of your basis. I certainly thought they had meaning;
Click to expand...
That's what I was explaining, to the baffled thread. You thought (or at least claimed as a presumption) you were posting (in the other thread) something relevant to (or implicated by, or whatever) a research article about people "informed" of a moral basis for their opinions.

That was not so. Nothing you posted in the other thread had any relationship to PI's article, because the necessary context of meaning - the possibility or relevant assertion of a moral basis for an argument or opinion there - did not exist. It's as if you had attempted to weaken an argument by insisting someone was posting in Mandarin Chinese, and then run into an article saying that people who think they are posting in Mandarin Chinese are more confident in their opinions - the only relevance would derive from some actual possibility or evidence, in the real world outside your head, that they were (or thought they were) posting in Mandarin Chinese.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the OP - PI's article - seems to continue and deepen past research into the effect of evidence and argument on people's opinions. In particular, it informs earlier findings that naturally "conservative" people, who more readily adopt a traditional moral basis for political stances in the face of utilitarian arguments (are more easily "informed" of a moral basis), also enact the common human patterns in their reactions to evidence and such. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...e-of-liberals-and-conservatives/#.V1HVyDcYI4M
http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/sc...gure-out-why-conservatives-are…-conservative/
 
Last edited:
Bowser said:
Yep.
Click to expand...

The problems arise when one discovers exactly how and why they decide what this morality they are not about to change consists of. Where'd it come from?

You want to be that guy - the one who tells the moral stalwarts what their morality is.
 
iceaura said:
You want to be that guy - the one who tells the moral stalwarts what their morality is.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on what you are willing to sacrifice in pursuit of the moral high ground. Would you sacrifice freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the democratic process to ensure your position is the most prevalent? I wouldn't.
 
bowser said:
I suppose it depends on what you are willing to sacrifice in pursuit of the moral high ground.
Click to expand...
That guy isn't seeking a moral high ground. He just wants to be king of the hill. And being in the position of telling a whole lot of people who will do and believe almost anything if given moral grounds what their morality is, what those grounds are, is a ticket to the crown.
 
Morality is based on our values, values that are taught/learned through life experience. Values, almost never change.

We all have them, and although some pretend they are not just as guilty of basing opinion around them, we all do it.

And almost everything has some element of interpretation to it, or some manner in which we can apply these values, thereby creating these different opinions that we cling to tightly to.

It sucks, but even the most educated of people do this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top