Shameful and Frightening: GOP takes measures to supress Black Vote...

[jgruber]

bad analogy.


open minded = willing to consider the possiblity that a particular issue may be true of false and willing to hear all evidence before deciding

I made that assertion about myself.  you said i'm not open minded.

in spite of the fact that i don't trust bush, i can be open minded on this issue beccause i also do not trust the democrats and i do not trust the press

i question all information from all sources to the same extent.

what part of open minded is missing?  having a contrary opinion to you is not the same thing as closed minded.

Let's put this another way. Suppose I argued that I, Bman, am a smart person. Suppose you were then to respond that I was not a smart person. It does not then follow that you believed I was intentionally lying. A person who is not smart could very well believe that they are smart, just as a person who is not open-minded could think that they are.

[Bman]

If you are open-minded (and I sincerely believe that you think you are) than I just hope that you can try to at least consider my criticism from a few pages back. There was no evidence to support Herbert's insinuation. He wanted to show an attempt to suppress the Black vote, and he couldn't. he just pointed to a fraud scandal and implied that it was bogus. My point was only that it would be nice, once in a while, to see you (or many other lefties for that matter) show your open-mindedness by saying, "look, guys, maybe this is true, maybe it isn't, but Herbert was out of line. This is a serious accuation and he had no evidence" or something like that.

And my view is not that I won't consider it until proven. I won't take it seriously unless I see some evidence. If someone accused another person of murder, but had absolutely zero evidence except a hunch (which is all Herbert had) I would not take it seriously, nor, I would argue, should I.

[jgruber]

So now we've narrowed it to the fact that I didn't say that I wouldn't take this seriously until I see some evidence?

When did I say I took it seriously?  I told you I didn't even read it.  That would be an indication that I don't take it seriously.

A little nitpicky aren't we?  I"m closed minded because I didn't use the right words in a sentence.

If you are open-minded (and I sincerely believe that you think you are) than I just hope that you can try to at least consider my criticism from a few pages back. There was no evidence to support Herbert's insinuation. He wanted to show an attempt to suppress the Black vote, and he couldn't. he just pointed to a fraud scandal and implied that it was bogus. My point was only that it would be nice, once in a while, to see you (or many other lefties for that matter) show your open-mindedness by saying, "look, guys, maybe this is true, maybe it isn't, but Herbert was out of line. This is a serious accuation and he had no evidence" or something like that.

And my view is not that I won't consider it until proven. I won't take it seriously unless I see some evidence. If someone accused another person of murder, but had absolutely zero evidence except a hunch (which is all Herbert had) I would not take it seriously, nor, I would argue, should I.

[The ZAPINATOR]

edit

[Bman]

Not that you didn't use the right words Jeffjoe. That you never seem to express any skepticism. Again, I think a truly open-minded person would occasionally note that an anti-Bush theory with no supporting evidence has no evidence. But I think our difference is this. For a story like this, with no evidence, Zap. and I say, 'well, I'm going to assume this isn't true until I see some evidence.' Your view, seems to be, that such a presumption of innocence is not a good thing (I think that's what you're saying. If you disagree, say so).

So now we've narrowed it to the fact that I didn't say that I wouldn't take this seriously until I see some evidence?

When did I say I took it seriously?  I told you I didn't even read it.  That would be an indication that I don't take it seriously.

A little nitpicky aren't we?  I"m closed minded because I didn't use the right words in a sentence.

If you are open-minded (and I sincerely believe that you think you are) than I just hope that you can try to at least consider my criticism from a few pages back. There was no evidence to support Herbert's insinuation. He wanted to show an attempt to suppress the Black vote, and he couldn't. he just pointed to a fraud scandal and implied that it was bogus. My point was only that it would be nice, once in a while, to see you (or many other lefties for that matter) show your open-mindedness by saying, "look, guys, maybe this is true, maybe it isn't, but Herbert was out of line. This is a serious accuation and he had no evidence" or something like that.

And my view is not that I won't consider it until proven. I won't take it seriously unless I see some evidence. If someone accused another person of murder, but had absolutely zero evidence except a hunch (which is all Herbert had) I would not take it seriously, nor, I would argue, should I.

[The ZAPINATOR]

edit

[Bman]

Here's a counterfactual to try and make my point more clear. Suppose, instead of Bush, Kerry were President. Suppose this Board was predominantly conservative Republicans instead of liberal democrats (and leftists of other persuasions). Suppose that a raft of conspiracy theories were being thrown out on the board with zero evidence and Bman (a hard core conservative) posted thousands of posts criticizing Kerry, but never noted a single time how poorly sourced and with how little evidence a lot of the theories had. I think you might doubt my open-mindedness in that case, as you should.

[jgruber]

Why do you bring up conspiracy theory so often?

I don't remember saying I'm the ultimate source of truth, but if I did I never thought anyone would take that seriously.  It's humor.

Like when I say "there is no truth to the rumor..."  I've done that a couple of times and you've reacted by arguing I said the opposite and you act as if you believe I meant the opposite instead of me offering a poor joke

what's with the mental illness thing?  I am willing to believe that politicians are capable of some really bad *&^% (war, oppression, violence and greed) because politicians have done really bad things.  Now you seem to be saying I'm willing to believe anything bad about any politician.  Whoah.  I never said I believed this.  Many of the items I've posted I do not necessarily believe.  I post them to stimulate discussion and probe the possiblity that they may have validity.

I do not sponsor the stories.  I post them, ask people for opinions and kick around some ideas.

And please stop accusing me of slander and reversing the meaning of open minded.

I can easily believe bad things about Mr. Bush because he has taken us to war, the ultimate expression of violence.  I am anti-war if you hadn't noticed, and anyone --- anyone -- anyone who takes us to war is on my *&^% list.  So dubya is on my *&^% list.  the politicians who authorized it are on my *&^% list.

you're accusing me of being closed minded because i've criticized the part of my *&^% list that you support.  I'm sorry.  they are all bastards, dems, repubs, all of them.  they are willing to use death and violence to meet their political goals. that makes them bastards.  All of them.

I am not showing any favoritism, because I condemn them all.  I don't want bush in the WH, I dont' want Kerry in the WH.  They are both bastards.  Now, what do you need to hear to understand that I am open mindedly cynical?

"I am willing to hear evidence on either side and make up my mind when all the news is in.  I don't think you and zap can say the same.  you have already said that you won't even consider the possiblity of its truth without proof.  that is not open minded."

I CAN say the same, thank YOU very much.  Of course I consider the possibility of its truth, but that's a hell of a lot different from EMBRACING every conspiracy theory that comes along, and that certainly extends to this one.  Give me proof, and I'll embrace anything you can convince me is right.  I'm far more open-minded than you from my perspective, because I'm willing to consider anything there is solid evidence for.  But just because jeffjoe says it (such as "The Bushies are behind this because they're evil because I said so and I am the ultimate source of truth") doesn't make it true.

What you're saying is preposterous.  You know it, I know it.  There's no need to try to justify it, because what you do isn't just consider things for which there is no proof... you make up your mind in a cynical way, and you've made it clear you seriously consider any negative story about anyone, whether or not there's proof.  What if I was to say you were an axe-murderer without any proof?  How would you feel if I got everyone to consider that without any evidence?  No, my friend, the generally-accepted method of open-mindedness is not to preclude any possibility, but to refuse to accept things for which there is no proof.  Conspiracy-mongering is a sign of mental illness and an inability to think critically.  Not to say those are true of you... you might be the exception that proves the rule.  But your version of open-mindedness is actually nothing more than code for "slander".

ZAP

[jgruber]

I have yet to suggest this story is true.  I have mostly posed questions on this board with some opinions thrown in.  If you read my posts carefully you will see I imply much and say little.

If this were a conservative board accusing kerry, i would weigh the evidence and decide.

Let's reverse this particular issue.  pretend it's someone allegedly intimidating likely republican voters.  Could I entertain the idea that Kerry or the Dems were behihnd it?  Damn right I could.  I've read my history.  I know that Dems are no strangers to dirty politics.

I'm willing to believe that dems and repubs would stoop this low.  You're damn right I am.

Here's a counterfactual to try and make my point more clear. Suppose, instead of Bush, Kerry were President. Suppose this Board was predominantly conservative Republicans instead of liberal democrats (and leftists of other persuasions). Suppose that a raft of conspiracy theories were being thrown out on the board with zero evidence and Bman (a hard core conservative) posted thousands of posts criticizing Kerry, but never noted a single time how poorly sourced and with how little evidence a lot of the theories had. I think you might doubt my open-mindedness in that case, as you should.

[Bman]

"Let's reverse this particular issue.  pretend it's someone allegedly intimidating likely republican voters.  Could I entertain the idea that Kerry or the Dems were behihnd it?  Damn right I could.  I've read my history.  I know that Dems are no strangers to dirty politics."

If the police were investigating Republican voters for voter fraud and there was zero evidence to suggest any improper activity on the part of the police, my reaction would be the same. Forget about it and think about other things, until some evidence is provided.