Over/under on California recall election

[Alan]

The unconvertible who won't even consider the possibility that there may be some truth in the opposite position aren't worth talking to, let alone arguing with, because neither they nor you will learn anything from the encounter.

I can see that in a one-on-one personal conversation but not in a public facing forum such as this. Those discussions are read by others who may find value in the give and take, especially if the active participants are using facts, logic and rational thought as part of the debate.

If someone only engages in discussions/debates if they're guaranteed a win via changing one particular person's view on the subject they have missed an opportunity to enlighten many others, even on a small forum such as ours. As an example, at this very moment there are 8 members logged on and perusing/reading the various threads, but there are also over 100 guests doing the same, that number will probably rise to 500 or more during evening hours. By engaging, even without the benefit of changing your opponent's mind, you have the opportunity to influence others with your slant on whatever the subject may be.

Of course, if you're not using facts, logic or rational thought processes to engage your opponent, you probably are wasting your time and may very well be better off not engaging. Just my 2 cents.

[GeorgeParker]

especially if the active participants are using facts, logic and rational thought as part of the debate.

Aye, there's the rub!

I invite you to take a close look at most of the political and covid-related discussions in the SLF that get out of hand and score each message as to where it fits on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and whether it actually advances the discussion and adds information or just echos what has already been said. Most of the time I see a lot of heat and very little light in such discussions, Your opinion may differ.
Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.jpg

[Alan]

Aye, there's the rub!

I invite you to take a close look at most of the political and covid-related discussions in the SLF that get out of hand and score each message as to where it fits on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and whether it actually advances the discussion and adds information or just echos what has already been said. Most of the time I see a lot of heat and very little light in such discussions, Your opinion may differ.
Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.jpg

Ha, you're preaching to the choir there Georgie, the vast majority of all philosophically based discussions are based on emotion, bias and hyperbole. In a good discussion others will counter that with facts, logic and rational thought, not necessarily to change your opponents mind but rather for those non-participatory readers who may benefit from it. If you just want to score points on your philosophical foe, you're doing it wrong.

[GeorgeParker]

the vast majority of all philosophically based discussions are based on emotion, bias and hyperbole. In a good discussion others will counter that with facts, logic and rational thought, not necessarily to change your opponents mind but rather for those non-participatory readers who may benefit from it.

I agree with that 100%.

And I would agree with this 100%

If someone just wants to score points on their philosophical foe, they're doing it wrong.

if you had said someone, their, and they're.

[Alan]

I agree with that 100%.

And I would agree with this 100%
if you had said someone, their, and they're.

Yes, but I was subtly directing that comment to you since you've mentioned several times that you do not wish to engage in many discussions if you believe there to be no opportunity to change a participant's mind. My last several posts on that subject have been an effort to show you the benefits of doing so anyway. Of course it also applies to they and them but it was primarily directed at you. Maybe I was too subtle.

[GeorgeParker]

Yes, but I was subtly directing that comment to you since you've mentioned several times that you do not wish to engage in many discussions if you believe there to be no opportunity to change a participant's mind. My last several posts on that subject have been an effort to show you the benefits of doing so anyway.

OK then, I'll clarify my position. I see no point in participating in threads about acrimonious or inflammatory subjects if there seems to be very little chance of changing the mind of any of the participants. I believe it's only worth making myself a target or fighting a battle if the potential good outweighs the potential annoyance participating will cause me.

[Alan]

OK then, I'll clarify my position. I see no point in participating in threads about acrimonious or inflammatory subjects if there seems to be very little chance of changing the mind of any of the participants. I believe it's only worth making myself a target or fighting a battle if the potential good outweighs the potential annoyance participating will cause me.

All righty then!

[jp1]

Larry Elder on the phone with CA’s Secretary of State tonight ‘I just need you to find 2.8 million votes. I’ll take care of the rest…’

To be fair after initially claiming voter fraud before the results even started being released Larry Elder has graciously admitted that he lost.

[Rogar]

OK then, I'll clarify my position. I see no point in participating in threads about acrimonious or inflammatory subjects if there seems to be very little chance of changing the mind of any of the participants. I believe it's only worth making myself a target or fighting a battle if the potential good outweighs the potential annoyance participating will cause me.

I sometimes enjoy reading or discussing contrarian ideas just to get a better understanding why people think a certain way. That seems to have value on it's own without any intentions of changing minds.

But I agree. If those sorts of things annoy you and you don't see the purpose, you should avoid them.

[jp1]

I am not at all surprised by this. A county’s level of vaccination was a good indicator of whether they supported newsom in the election.

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...mpression=true

And equally not surprising, the current covid heat map for California also closely mirrors the election results. (The blood red county just south of the NE corner of the state is Lassen County the least vaccinated and the most strongly in favor of recalling Newsom.)

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProjectLi...132962826?s=20