Pavlovian Reactionism

Graviton

Well-Known Member
I don't really think that. I think that there are major differences that most people in each party actually believe in.
Or at least they think they do. Usually it's about how to run somebody else's life.

However, I do believe that at the top of the ladder there are people working together, perhaps controlling candidates from the parties.
Allow me to clarify my statement: I meant to say the party apparatus and the politicians are essentially members of the same Ruling Party. They just kinda-sorta swap power every once in awhile, but they're always there. They exploit those honest policy disagreements that we regular joes have to get us to join their team and demonize the other guys.

I honestly think that too many opinions are emotionally held rather than rationally arrived at. I think that's why people get so upset when their beliefs are challenged: they're not sure why they believe what they do, they just feel that it's right, and so any disagreement is viewed as a personal attack. It also leads to the aforementioned demonization: I think what I believe makes me a good person, so if you disagree with me, you must be a bad person. Nevermind what the arguments are, what the logic is, we skip on by that and assign the motivation solely to character, or lack thereof. It's utter nonsense, and yet I'm convinced that describes a majority of people. Sadly, that is also exploited by policitians, even those who claim to be outsiders.
 
Or at least they think they do. Usually it's about how to run somebody else's life.



Allow me to clarify my statement: I meant to say the party apparatus and the politicians are essentially members of the same Ruling Party. They just kinda-sorta swap power every once in awhile, but they're always there. They exploit those honest policy disagreements that we regular joes have to get us to join their team and demonize the other guys.

I honestly think that too many opinions are emotionally held rather than rationally arrived at. I think that's why people get so upset when their beliefs are challenged: they're not sure why they believe what they do, they just feel that it's right, and so any disagreement is viewed as a personal attack. It also leads to the aforementioned demonization: I think what I believe makes me a good person, so if you disagree with me, you must be a bad person. Nevermind what the arguments are, what the logic is, we skip on by that and assign the motivation solely to character, or lack thereof. It's utter nonsense, and yet I'm convinced that describes a majority of people. Sadly, that is also exploited by policitians, even those who claim to be outsiders.
Totally agree with that. That is why so many debates turn into shouting matches with each side screaming their one opinion rather than reasoned and informed debate
 

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
Well, I get that you're just saying that he isn't a brilliant mind if he got the most important question of all wrong, just pointing out as a side fact that he can still have useful insights.
Never said he couldn't have useful insights. A person can have all kinds of useful insights on minor stuff, but if they get the big things wrong, they can hardly be called brilliant.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Never said he couldn't have useful insights. A person can have all kinds of useful insights on minor stuff, but if they get the big things wrong, they can hardly be called brilliant.
Can't say I agree. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. That hardly qualifies him for Mensa.
 
Last edited:
Stephen all I was doing was defending a small portion of what RazorbackPirate was saying. I am sympathetic to what you are saying but also was trying to explain to you what he was saying. But by now of course I'm sure you understand what he meant