Saying that “there is absolutely no evidence supporting your position” is an entirely reasonable statement to make if it is indeed true.
If the facts are on my side, and unequivocally so, then I feel perfectly comfortable in making such a statement – and I don’t feel that saying so makes me a member of the “Religious Left.”
You paint with too broad of a brush, Sir or Madame.
(The difficulty, of course, is that facts are slippery…)
Spiff
Very technically true, but meaningless here – there’s no such thing as evidence that can make an opinion “true”.
Your point about “facts” is well-taken.
What’s important to you? I could toss out some things that McCain would do better (imho) than Obama, but if they’re not on the top of your list of important issues it’d be a waste of time.
Do you care about the 2nd Amendment? Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution? Energy? I’m with McCain on these.
Or maybe abortion, homeland security, or global warming are more your cup of tea? I’m opposed to him on these but maybe you’re not.
(I oppose Obama on 5 of the 6, btw).
I formed my opinion of both candidates by listening to them, reading their stated positions, and looking at their voting record on things that are important to me. A very liberal message board is probably not the best place to seek answers about Republican candidates. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/ might be a better place to start.
That’s true, but it’s rather rare that an issue meets this criteria. For example, no reasonable (and informed) person could believe that the moon landing was a hoax. Or that the Israelis were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Of course not. What makes you a member of the Religious Left is if you believe that no reasonable and informed person could support John McCain. Or that no reasonable and informed person could disbelieve the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis. etc. etc.
Reasonable people can make misjudgments and poorly-informed decisions all the time.
In your view, is it possible for a reasonable and informed person to believe that the moon landing was a hoax?
Is it possible for a reasonable and informed person to believe that the Israelis were responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
Sure. Different people have different information thresholds for making confidence judgments. Reasonability is not just a binary property of all beliefs. I even know a few reasonable people who believe in god and in salvation after death.
I think your beliefs about anthropogenic climate change are poorly informed and absolutely wrong, but I am sure that you are a pretty reasonable guy. Your preferences over this particular issue seem to make you impervious to logic and evidence. But again, you have a basic understanding of cause and effect in human relations, and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that people do not find you unbearable to be around. I have friends with all sorts of beliefs I think are a bit nutty, but they are all perfectly reasonable people.
If I had to vote on a candidate based on last night’s debate (or any tv appearances, for that matter) and had to do so after only watching (not hearing, The volume is off,) there’s no way in Hell I would vote for McCain. What’s up with that holier-than-thou eyeroll and that effing self-righteous smirk. I could barely stand to watch it. He has the most unpleasant and pissy facial expressions imaginable. To me, he just looks like an asshole.
This one I continue to see when it comes to Republican vs. Democrat beliefs. Have you read a paper lately? GW just bought stock in american banks, which means the government owns public banks. The government owns loan companies!! Owns them!
This is okay with Republicans, but having the government assist with universal health care is off limits? Mind you, Obama just wants the government to assist. He’s not buying hospitals, not employing the doctors simply assisting with needed funds.
So who exactly is for big government and socialism again? Didn’t McCain himself say the government has had it’s largest growth over the past 8yrs then any other time in history? Who is the republican here?
Then let me re-state my point: Believing that the evidence on the CAGW issue is as one-sided as the evidence on the moon-landing issue is a hallmark of the Religious Left.
It’s interesting you should say that, because at one time I accepted the CAGW hypothesis. It was only after I studied advanced statistics and simulation AND learned how to think critically that I became a skeptic and then a denier.
Anyway, I don’t want to derail this thread into a global warming debate. I have laid out my case elsewhere. Feel free to post whatever arguments or evidence you like on my blog and I will be happy to consider it.
It seems you made quite a narrow set of parameters, there. If you had to vote based on watching a silent motion picture of the two candidates, why would you have confidence your choice is going to be the best one?
Not all affable Presidents were good ones.
It seems to me that you wouldn’t have enough info to go on, without knowing their positions…
I 'unno… bar bet?
Oh, I know…just a what if kind of thing. While it’s true that not all affable presidents were good ones, I’m afraid I’d be more likely to vote for the one I perceive to be more so. So far, in life, I’ve made fairly accurate judgements about folks I’ve been able to observe (without hearing them speak) based on their posture and facial expressions. I don’t think that’s too far “out there.”
Heh.
I bet if you got on FDR’s bad side, he could be pretty scathing in demeanor when he chose to. 
Evidence is not “one-sided”. It is what it is. Either it confirms your null hypothesis or it doesn’t. Believing that evidence is ever “one-sided” is the hallmark of an unscientific mind. Dogmatic disbelief or refusal to accept when the null hypothesis is proven false is the same. Otherwise “reasonable” people can do this from time to time. People are wacky like that. It’s what keeps things interesting.
Kind of amazing that you leave out climatology in your parade of accomplishments. I defer to the admirable scientific arguments made by jshore and the like. I am familiar with those debates, and the scientific opinion was absolutely convincing. I am not a climatologist, but I am a statistician. If I am feeling sufficiently masochistic, I will take a look at your blog.
I respectfully disagree. For example, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the moon-landing was not a hoax. And that the Holocaust happened. There is simply no reasonable doubt that these things happened.
That’s what I mean by “one-sided.” Perhaps you understand the phrase in a different way.
I’m not sure why you consider that “amazing”
Feel free.
Hmmm. That’s not very encouraging.
2nd Amendment - I’m all for responsible gun ownership; I just can’t accept unrestricted gun sales are either a good thing or an absolute right. Having to wait a week is not an infringement of the Constitution, say I. However, this isn’t a dealbreaker.
Abortion - pro-choice but think Roe v Wade was a dubious means of keeping abortion legal. Probably more in the Obama camp; certainly not in the Palin camp.
Supreme Court - I’m all for more traditionalist, less activist judges - but deeply dislike Scalia and Thomas. I liked Souter early in his SC career but am not sure what the hell he’s doing these days; he seems to have wandered off to the other side of the hall. Basically, I want Constitution Nerds on the Court. I’m not sure if that means I agree or disagree with McCain.
Energy - I’d kind of like to not drill the hell out of Alaska. Unfortunately both Obama and McCain have some sort of commitment to do this, so I suppose I’m screwed here.
Homeland Security - whoa.
I’m really not convinced - and this is a dealbreaker - that McCain’s idea of “defending my personal freedom” is the same as mine, or that the highest priority of the President should be “protecting my life”. Because I’m less scared of terrorists blowing me up (and I live and work in a prime (albeit non-US) target) than I am of my government being abused by unscrupulous politicians (and is there any other kind?). I’d like my personal freedom defended by not having it abused by the government in the form of spurious wiretaps, indefinite incarceration without charge, “free speech zones” and the rampant politicization of the Justice Department. You gonna fix all that for me, John? Maybe get rid of all those civil rights abuses perpetrated over the past eight years?
Still proud of that one, are we? Then I suspect I must look elsewhere for a candidate.
Mind you, Obama’s stand on the Acthasn’t filled me with unalloyed joy either (waffle much, Mr O?) but at least he demonstrates an awareness of its problems. Half a loaf is better than none.
I’ve even checked out Bob Barr - we seem to agree on privacy issues but disagree on quite a lot else. Plus he wants to drill the hell out of Alaska too.
Maybe I should vote for Kodos. Abortions for some, free American flags for everyone else!
Yet others have no reasonable doubt about anthropogenic climate change. Using particular beliefs and particular standards of evidence as criteria for “reasonableness” is very arbitrary. If I were the arbiter of such things, I would call you a very unreasonable person, despite your personal opinions about the evidence at hand.
Apparently I misspelled “unsurprisingly”.
Oh I dunno. Suppose I prove that a coin will always come up heads?
My evidence is fifteen examples where it does.
If I’m leaving out the examples where it comes up tales, isn’t my evidence quite literally one-sided?
I suppose my underlying assumption is that people are honest enough not to do that sort of thing if they want to have a meaningful discussion and maybe learn something. But I could be wrong.