Elizabeth Warren's Pregnant Pause

[lilpixieofterror]

I wouldn't say "heavily." You're right in that history is an interpretive discipline, but it doesn't follow that history is like creative writing. Historical interpretations are constrained by actual arguments and arguments are constrained by documentary evidence. So there are clearly better historical interpretations and worse interpretations. There is no omniscient historical point of view, just as there can't be in any of the humanities, but we can be pretty confident that Washington was a 'better' President than Buchanan, Hitler was a bad guy, etc. It's amusing how conservatives can become relativists when it suits their purposes.

It’s amusing how liberals are so into absolute facts, when it suits their purpose. I see you ignored my examples. Read the contemporary accounts of Lincoln and Truman. Truman had some of the lowest poll numbers ever and Lincoln would have been ever lower if such polls existed at the time. Yet today, these two are regarded much higher. Point? You can’t accurately judge a president until he’s been out of office for a few decades because history isn’t a hard science like physics or math, but is more heavily influenced by subjective opinions and the emotions of those studying it.

[lilpixieofterror]

You're missing my point, again.

You think that you are not partisan, and that your views are all based in objective facts, etc etc. No bias.

You're wrong. No-one is completely above bias. I'm not, you're not.


I've seen you accept the media presentation of something Trump said, and roll with the narrative they set. Yet when I look at the facts, the media presentation of the issue is clearly skewed unfavourably against Trump. That convinces me that you're biased towards certain positions, and biased against others. Doesn't make those positions right or wrong, but does make you less reliable as a judge of truth in those matters.

When you refuse to accept that you are NOT an objective observer, you weaken your own credibility, and you insulate yourself against having your preconceptions challenged by new data. Which means that your beliefs are less likely to reflect external reality. I guess if you're happy with that, .

I don’t think he gets that history isn’t as objectively driven as physics is and it’s much easier for the historian to leak his subjective opinions in than it is for the physicist to leak his in. The physicist can perform experiments than can confirm their theories or it doesn’t, there really isn’t too much wiggle room. There isn’t really an experiment that the historian can perform to get a hard result. Sure, they can present x, y, and z fact to back their beliefs, but others can do the same and come to an opposite conclusion. I don’t get why so many people can’t understand this, history isn’t a hard science.

[oxmixmudd]

It does, but there’s a difference between general and always. I can’t say I would blame those who had intense feelings of hate and anger of those who first laid eyes on a Nazi death camp and found the horrors within.

I wouldn't 'Blame" them either. It is one thing to acknowledge such emotions are natural. Quite another to say they are ok, acceptable, to be nourished and fed. To give in to hate is to become evil. To willingly participate in hatred is sin. To not work towards reconciliation and forgiveness is to spit upon the Cross of Christ, for he died for all, that all might be forgiven and set free from the bondage of hatred and sin.

You seem to be working very hard to find some justification for hatred. There is none.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

I wouldn't 'Blame" them either. It is one thing to acknowledge such emotions are natural. Quite another to say they are ok, acceptable, to be nourished and fed. To give in to hate is to become evil. To willingly participate in hatred is sin. To not work towards reconciliation and forgiveness is to spit upon the Cross of Christ, for he died for all, that all might be forgiven and set free from the bondage of hatred and sin.

You seem to be working very hard to find some justification for hatred. There is none.

Jim

I’m not ‘working hard’ at all. I think you’re being too black/white. An emotional reaction exist, it is what one decides to do with such a thing that determines if it is good or evil. It is just as easy to twist love to evil purposes as any other emotion.

[oxmixmudd]

I’m not ‘working hard’ at all. I think you’re being too black/white. An emotional reaction exist, it is what one decides to do with such a thing that determines if it is good or evil. It is just as easy to twist love to evil purposes as any other emotion.

That is not your original argument or approach to the topic, but so be it.

[lilpixieofterror]

That is not your original argument or approach to the topic, but so be it.

Me 2 days ago:

“Why? Emotions are just things that exist that can produce both good things and bad things. It is just as easy to use love to perform evil deeds as any other emotion.”

Me today:

“An emotional reaction exist, it is what one decides to do with such a thing that determines if it is good or evil. It is just as easy to twist love to evil purposes as any other emotion.”

Looks pretty consistent to me. Maybe you should that whole ‘active reading’ thing.

[oxmixmudd]

Me 2 days ago:

“Why? Emotions are just things that exist that can produce both good things and bad things. It is just as easy to use love to perform evil deeds as any other emotion.”

Me today:

“An emotional reaction exist, it is what one decides to do with such a thing that determines if it is good or evil. It is just as easy to twist love to evil purposes as any other emotion.”

Looks pretty consistent to me. Maybe you should that whole ‘active reading’ thing.

Pix, you were arguing for having hated, tryingvto justify it. You can't just decide you weren't. You had ample opportunities in my multiple posts to acknowledge harboring and acting on hatred is a bad thing and to say you only were talking about an immediate emotion that one would reject or seek help in finding a path to forgiveness.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

You can’t accurately judge a president until he’s been out of office for a few decades...

I would suggest even longer than that. I don't think anybody who has a living memory of a president will be able to accurately judge him. You need somebody with no emotional connection.

[lilpixieofterror]

Pix, you were arguing for having hated, tryingvto justify it. You can't just decide you weren't. You had ample opportunities in my multiple posts to acknowledge harboring and acting on hatred is a bad thing and to say you only were talking about an immediate emotion that one would reject or seek help in finding a path to forgiveness.


Jim

No I wasn’t. What I argue is that emotions do not sit in either being good or evil, but simply exist. I believe we need to properly understand and channel them in a proper manner or else we risk reacting in an improper and irrational manner. I said this days ago and quoted it word for word where I said the exact same thing. Do I need to post the post number too? You don’t read what your opponents say Jim, you see what you want, fill in the blanks, and that’s it.

[Mountain Man]

You had ample opportunities in my multiple posts to acknowledge harboring and acting on hatred is a bad thing...

Pretty sure she made precisely that point when she said, "An emotional reaction exist, it is what one decides to do with such a thing that determines if it is good or evil."

[lilpixieofterror]

I would suggest even longer than that. I don't think anybody who has a living memory of a president will be able to accurately judge him. You need somebody with no emotional connection.

Yes and no, I was alive when Regan was President, but I honestly don’t remember anything about what he said or did. Second, I think it’s impossible to not have an emotion connection because we pass on our views on a president to our children and they do the same to theirs. I think this is why Lincoln is so highly regarded today, he became a martyr and those that attacked him, in life, were shamed for what they did, thus he became a legend.

[Sam]

We all fondly remember the forbearance shown here and by Conservatives everywhere when they steadfastly refused to pass judgement on the Obama presidency.

--Sam

I would suggest even longer than that. I don't think anybody who has a living memory of a president will be able to accurately judge him. You need somebody with no emotional connection.

[Cow Poke]

Did a democrat say it, than Sam will defend it, no matter what. You can bet your lucky stripes if this was 2014 and a Republican would have pulled this stunt, he’d call it a dishonest attack because a Republican said it, so it’s false. Shoot, he didn’t even know that Clinton’s e mail contained classified material!

I have to admit, I thought Sam presented himself as less biased. I admit I was wrong.

[lilpixieofterror]

We all fondly remember the forbearance shown here and by Conservatives everywhere when they steadfastly refused to pass judgement on the Obama presidency.

--Sam

There’s things I didn’t like that Obama did, such as his increased drone strikes, attack on Liberia, or lying about the ACA. There’s also things I think were blown up, such as family vacations and the price of Michelle’s cloths. There’s also things I find ridiculous that are not worth talking about (such as Obama being a secret Muslim). However, I have no idea what views my grandchildren or great grandchildren will take on his legacy. Can you admit that much, about Trump?

[Sam]

I have to admit, I thought Sam presented himself as less biased. I admit I was wrong.

As I wrote to MaxVel, this is work that has to be shown, not merely asserted. If someone is approaching an argument from the standpoint that bias exists and can infect one's reasoning, they do themselves a rather ridiculous disservice by turning around and imagining that of course they are the rational and objective arbiter of fact without first doing the work.

--Sam