It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are you an ideological robot?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 10:58 PM
link   
One of my favorite subscriptions, "Learn Liberty," has a great video about the ideological Turing test. It is a great lesson about questioning your own beliefs and learning how easy it is to misrepresent your opponents views.

www.youtube.com...



I put this in the mudpit, since it largely involved politics and I know how that can go sometimes. But this isn't an attempt to denigrate any specific party. Like all the "Learn Liberty" videos, I think it makes some valid points and offers a way to gain perspective on opposing ideas

edit on 8/20/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Are you?

Since I've invented my own ideology, how would I fare?




posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 11:39 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I definitely understood that, I always see where people are coming from.

Even if I don't like it and vice versa.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 12:21 AM
link   
No, I am not.


I am a concrete organism.
The best way to gain perspective, in my experience: is to look at both young & old, both rich and poor, both happy and sad. This is why so many people lack perspective! Too busy looking at either one or the other, never seeing the big picture.


Personality tests are very imprecise, btw.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

This very subject has been on my mind a lot recently. I was brought up by extremely liberal parents. But they always call me a Republican (which is fine) and most times I feel that I am. After I think that very thing I remember that really “left” and “right” is just a way to divide us as a whole. Divide and conquer I guess you could say.

Anyways thanks for giving me some new content to watch
Always nice to find something new!



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

how easy it is to misrepresent your opponents views.

Or how hard it is to misrepresent them when all they can do is pound out the same unvarying note over and over and over again



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Another way of looking at things from an old persons perspective. How many times do you have to listen to socialist, communist, dictators, crystal rubbing soothsayers, before you realize they are all full of utopian ideas (or lies) that have never worked through out human history unless you are talking about a small band of hunter gathers depending on each other for survival.

How many times do you have to listen to those who attempt to rewrite history into their own version, instead of what actually happened as you saw it unfold with your own eyes ? After a while instead of trying to understand their B.S. you just shake your head and move on; for no matter what you say or show it will make little or no difference in their misguided core beliefs.

Misguided !! It is all a matter of perspective and depends on which end of history you are on IMO. The fake history which is always being advanced or the real history reported by those who were there.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 02:34 AM
link   
I would say that the "ideological robots" are those that, on either side, are habitual "lazy thinkers" basing their shallow views and opinions on tired, often debunked partisan stereotypes and tend to think only in memes and soundbytes(easiest to remember and regurgitate).
Happiest when ensconced in an echo chamber, firing off the latest buzzwords to display their superficial understanding of whatever is currently trending in hyper partisan hack world.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

In terms of ideology, I find that there are both good and bad ideas from most bipolarly argued sides.

As an example, although I understand that the average gun nut really believes that they are safer and more free because of weapons proliferation, I can't rationally accept the position.

My reasoning is that the same law that arms them, also arms their potential opponents (plural). As there is only one of them and there are numerous potential opponents, no amount of proliferation will make them safer. The more guns, the more likely that they will be shot, so the safety issue goes the other way. It is simple math.

Does this mean I am an ideological robot for not accepting their view or that I am the opposite for understanding the emotionalism of their response.

edit on 21/8/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Humans are stuck in ideologies like brer rabbits in the tar. Sticks and stones...
edit on 8212018 by frenchfries because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

If you ignore the missing fact that criminals dont follow laws it appears you are not representing the full arguement to yourself for consideration, or are ignoring it to misrepresent the view you argue against.

So yes. You may be a robot.

Proliferation isnt the risk. The risk is criminals who are armed. Since guns exist they will have one. Therefore i need one.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Pretty good video. The best way I find to understand the ideology of your opponent is to actually be on their side for some period of time. The most intelligent political speakers in my experience are often people who have decided to switch political positions, then fall back some where near the center after recognizing the flaws on both sides of the spectrum after experiencing both sides first hand.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

When I took debating in high school, this was a basic premise, that one could not effectively debate an issue if one could not understand the opposition's position. Not what we think of their position, but their actual position. To do any less is to debate against a phantom. If you don't understand their position, how can you argue against it? You can't.

But the problem isn't that people cannot understand the opposing argument; the problem is that people refuse to address the opposing argument. People love to argue strawman arguments. Probably because it's much easier than to address the real problems inherent in any position. Because nothing is perfect. So we argue what is easiest to argue. And get nowhere.

And because we don't want to see the problems inherent in our own position. So we deflect and distract.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


My reasoning is that the same law that arms them, also arms their potential opponents (plural).


That's a flawed premise. The law doesn't arm anyone. We could burn every law on the books, and there will still be guns. We could make a million gazillion laws banning guns, and there will still be guns. Guns -- and people with guns -- exist independent of laws.


As there is only one of them and there are numerous potential opponents, no amount of proliferation will make them safer. The more guns, the more likely that they will be shot, so the safety issue goes the other way. It is simple math.


Simple math? No. Again, a flawed premise. A gun is a thing... an inanimate object... Guns do not fire by themselves. I could have a million gazillion guns and it doesn't mean I will ever fire even one of them a single time. Someone else can have one gun and shoot it a million gazillion times. The numbers mean nothing in and of themselves. But if we outlaw guns, then we can be sure that only outlaws will have guns, and I don't like that ratio.

So it's not about quantity, it's about proportion: Are we going to deny people the proportionate use of force to defend themselves?


Does this mean I am an ideological robot for not accepting their view or that I am the opposite for understanding the emotionalism of their response.


Well, let's see... your premise is flawed, so your conclusions are flawed. And therefore so too is your judgment of the "emotionalism" of your ideological opponents' response.

You tell me: Is your perspective flawed due to ideology? Or ignorance?



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Great video, though I'm afraid some of the comments here have already shown that it may be like showing card tricks to a dog.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

In all honesty, if you evaluate "simple math" it would seem we have become far less effective at killing each other since guns have come around.

Murder rates continue to drop. And there isn't much to give us hope that we weren't far, far more violent in our past.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Boadicea

In all honesty, if you evaluate "simple math" it would seem we have become far less effective at killing each other since guns have come around.

Murder rates continue to drop. And there isn't much to give us hope that we weren't far, far more violent in our past.


Excellent point. If it were only about guns and the number of guns, then there would have been no killing before guns.

And if it were simply a matter of the number of guns -- and not those in possession of the gun -- then the murder rate should be increasing proportionately to the number of guns manufactured and purchased.

And to take it a step further, if it were only about guns, then we could expect each and every gun should be fired the same number of times, and injure/kill the same number of people.

But that hasn't happened.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

As an example, although I understand that the average gun nut really believes that they are safer and more free because of weapons proliferation, I can't rationally accept the position.

Well, there's the start of your problem--you view everyone who supports the 2nd Amendment as a "gun nut," when in reality, the majority of Americans support the existence of the 2nd Amendment and the personal right to keep and bear arms. Not all of this majority of America is a gun nut.

Furthermore, here are some interesting stats from the Pew Research Center:
    -- When asked "who should be legally able to own guns," 72% of all respondents answered with "most people" or "almost everyone," and you can add another 19% to that for those who answered "some people."

    -- When asked "where should people be able to legally carry guns," 56% of all respondents answered with "most places" or "almost everywhere," and you can add another 28% to that for those who answered "some places."

    -- When asked "What types of guns should be legally available to buy," 51% of all respondents answered with "most types" or "almost all types," and you can add another 28% to that for those who answered "some types."

    -- Of note is how non-owners of firearms answered in order of the three questions above:

      -- 63% plus another 24%

      -- 47% plus another 33%

      -- 52% plus another 34%

So, here's my point--you talk about gun nuts and use such inflammatory rhetoric, but the reality is that well over half of the general population of America are pretty cool with gun ownership and gun carry. So, without expanding on your definition of "the average gun nut," how are we even to know who you are talking about? Maybe you're talking about NRA members, who comprise only 1/5 of gun owners? Even so, you can't broad-stroke all of them, either, so are you interested in quantifying what your opinion of "the average gun nut" is so that maybe you can present yourself as maybe someone who understands the other side of the argument?


My reasoning is that the same law that arms them, also arms their potential opponents (plural). As there is only one of them and there are numerous potential opponents, no amount of proliferation will make them safer. The more guns, the more likely that they will be shot, so the safety issue goes the other way. It is simple math.

No, that's George-W.-Bush fuzzy math.

There is no law arming people, there is a law protecting someone's right to keep and bear arms--that is a difference worthy of note. Furthermore, the average gun owner is not a criminal and does not use a firearm for illegal purposes, therefore you cannot pretend that people who use firearms illegally against other individuals are following the same laws as the average gun owner. There's simply no logical reasoning behind that comment at all.

The truth of the matter is that criminals disregard laws by their very nature and defining term ("criminals"). Laws meant to regulate law-abiding citizens mean nothing to criminals. All of the other people carrying firearms on them out in public are not my potential opponents, they are my potential ally, statistically speaking.

You have your statistics and facts mixed up, or you have failed to actually research this at all. Furthermore, there are more guns in America than there are people--I would think that if guns were a problem, statistics would be much higher for murders and gun-related injuries than they are in a nation approaching 330-million people.


Does this mean I am an ideological robot for not accepting their view or that I am the opposite for understanding the emotionalism of their response.

No--you are a robot because you misuse or ignore actual statistics and choose an ideological viewpoint over statistical facts. THAT makes you a robot, not just that you disagree.

Also, pretending that it's just an emotional response that more legally owned guns equates to a safer American society is just silly, as there are studies that point to this being true (although it's fair to say that it's just correlation, and not true causation, from the data of the studies).



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

In terms of ideology, I find that there are both good and bad ideas from most bipolarly argued sides.

As an example, although I understand that the average gun nut really believes that they are safer and more free because of weapons proliferation, I can't rationally accept the position.

My reasoning is that the same law that arms them, also arms their potential opponents (plural). As there is only one of them and there are numerous potential opponents, no amount of proliferation will make them safer. The more guns, the more likely that they will be shot, so the safety issue goes the other way. It is simple math.

Does this mean I am an ideological robot for not accepting their view or that I am the opposite for understanding the emotionalism of their response.


perhaps understanding your reasoning might help to understand your position. Could you explain how me owning more guns would equate to a better chance of me getting shot?




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join