Purple Grass, Lime Green Sky. Discussing Politics on ATS.

Dear ATSers,

I'd really like someone to show that I'm wrong here. I usually enjoy discussing politics, but something rather odd seems to be happening. Let me offer an example. Someone might insist that our President is a centrist or a moderate. What can be done with a person holding such views? I'm willing to have a discussion, but I have no idea how to have one with such a person.

Certainly, one can be polite and ask that individual to explain his views, ask for definitions, etc., but what's the point? You can't discuss colors with someone insisting the grass is purple and the sky is lime green. Yet we have people insisting on that.

We have people who don't believe that Eric Holder should be censured and fired, and would be in any decent administration.

Some people claim that this is one of the more transparent administrations.

Some claim that the "problems" the administration finds itself in are either minor, politically motivated, or something that both sides do equally.

Some have written that Romney would do the same things as Obama, and would be a worse president.

Some claim that our President has some significant accomplishments besides ordering the SEALS to kill Bin Laden (After Valerie Jarrett told him twice not to.).

Some deny that he is a socialist (Or statist, or fascist, or whatever else the word is these days.)

Some deny that he is using the power of the government to go after his enemies in attempts to silence, intimidate, or harass them, even more so than Nixon.

Some think the economy is on track and coming along just fine.

Some think the Constitution is outdated and unworkable.

Some think our President hasn't broken laws while President.

There are so many of these "Purple grass, lime green sky" people on ATS that one spends a lot of time trying to show 2+2=4.
For some reason, it seems as though their existence is tied into the belief that Americans are too foolish to decide things for themselves and that the only proper thing is to have the wise and kind people in the federal government make up as many decisions and rules as possible. If someone disagrees with that, the person is attacked as being an evil, immoral, threat to society, who must be silenced in some way or another. Surprisingly, the liberals are less tolerant than the conservatives.

So much time is spent trying to describe the reality which they can't see, any serious conversation is put on hold. But it does get tedious at times, trying to explain that the grass is really green, and the sky is truly blue.

With respect,
Charles1952

Have you considered that maybe they see purple when they look at grass?

reply to post by charles1952


While there are plenty of educated, well-thought individuals on these forums, there is an equal amount of blissful ignorance. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, though. It does get frustrating when simple logic and reason does not get through to people. I suppose their rebuttal would be to tell us what we think is logical and reasonable is a fallacy. This is a website focused on conspiracies, aliens, and the paranormal. You sort of walked into it, no?

reply to post by charles1952


Another person could write the same thread saying that he can't respond to people with the opposite arguments. Basically, all you are saying is that you find it difficult to articulate your own position against those who simply do not agree with you and you get tired of trying.

reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71

Dear Hoosierdaddy71,

Thanks. Yes, I have. But while we could have many fruitful conversations on other topics, it would make no sense to rely on his opinion of colors. In the same way, people who hold some false beliefs about factual political matters, and refuse to change their opinions when shown the facts, are troublesome partners for a dialogue.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


We have people who don't believe that Eric Holder should be censured and fired, and would be in any decent administration.

Some people claim that this is one of the more transparent administrations.

Some claim that the "problems" the administration finds itself in are either minor, politically motivated, or something that both sides do equally.

Some have written that Romney would do the same things as Obama, and would be a worse president.

Some claim that our President has some significant accomplishments besides ordering the SEALS to kill Bin Laden (After Valerie Jarrett told him twice not to.).

Some deny that he is a socialist (Or statist, or fascist, or whatever else the word is these days.)

Some deny that he is using the power of the government to go after his enemies in attempts to silence, intimidate, or harass them, even more so than Nixon.

Some think the economy is on track and coming along just fine.

Some think the Constitution is outdated and unworkable.

Some think our President hasn't broken laws while President.

Any American who actually thinks any of those things are somehow True has to be a BRAIN DEAD MORON and should do the rest of America a Favor and either Leave the Country or prepare to Meet their maker ......

reply to post by ExNihiloRed

Dear ExNihiloRed,

I appreciate your post and completely agree with you here:

This is a website focused on conspiracies, aliens, and the paranormal. You sort of walked into it, no?

True enough, I could have prevented this problem, but for whatever reason, I didn't so I'm stuck working through this.

While there are plenty of educated, well-thought individuals on these forums, there is an equal amount of blissful ignorance.

I have no objection to blissful ignorance, but I do to stubborn, unchanging ignorance. If you show someone graphs from a variety of sources indicating this is the worst recovery in 70 years (at least), that person should abandon the claim that our President is handling the economy well.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, though.

They are certainly entitled to have one, but only because there is no way to prevent it. I may have an uneducated opinion on Quantum Mechanics, but I would be a fool to express it, and would deserve the scorn and mockery it would receive.

It does get frustrating when simple logic and reason does not get through to people.

If you're talking to a person who does not grasp simple logic and reason, it would be best not to talk about anything serious at all.

I suppose their rebuttal would be to tell us what we think is logical and reasonable is a fallacy.

There are rules to logic and reason. If someone can show me that any particular proof breaks those rules, I'm willing to abandon it.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


You missed the point of my comment. I meant that some people see the world different than you. That doesn't make them wrong. Let me give you an example. Christians believe in god, atheists don't. They also are not going to be swayed to the other sides viewpoint. Is one of them wrong for disagreeing with you? And are you willing to change your view? They are just as convinced as you that they are right.

Hoosierdaddy71
reply to post by charles1952

 

You missed the point of my comment. I meant that some people see the world different than you. That doesn't make them wrong. Let me give you an example. Christians believe in god, atheists don't. They also are not going to be swayed to the other sides viewpoint. Is one of them wrong for disagreeing with you? And are you willing to change your view? They are just as convinced as you that they are right.

There's a vast difference between disagreeing over a theological issue that ultimately comes down to faith and political or worldly issues that can usually be substantiated via a Google search. Many koolaid drinkers both right and left simply refuse to look at facts and documented sources as they don't match their world view.

Usually not worth arguing with folks like that as it's a waste of both time and energy. And that's how I deal with them.

reply to post by Cuervo

Dear Cuervo,

Nice to see you again, and thanks for the response. I don't think you would be surprised if I said that I may not have expressed my point clearly.

I'm not talking about opposing arguments at all. I'm talking about the ability to see facts and apply logic to reach a conclusion. For example "The current administration is much less transparent than many others, and far darker than "The most transparent administration ever."

I would start with the statement from the editor of The New York Times saying that this administration is the least transparent she's ever seen. This is coming from a paper that is one of Obama's best friends. Same thing from Associated Press. Consider the reporters whose lines have been tapped, property seized, and threatened by the administration with the loss of their jobs. The reporters locked in closets at a Joe Biden speech, prohibited from entry to a Hillary Clinton speech to which the public was invited, but not the local press.

If someone sees all that and more, and comes to the conclusion that this administration is the most transparent in history, all a reasonable person can do is shake his head and walk away slowly.

Another person could write the same thread saying that he can't respond to people with the opposite arguments. Basically, all you are saying is that you find it difficult to articulate your own position against those who simply do not agree with you and you get tired of trying.

As above, it's not about getting someone to accept my positions, some will, some won't, that's all fine and the way it should be. My complaint is with someone who has difficulty accepting contrary facts, from which a discussion can begin.

I'd be delighted to have some write an opposite thread, but, as I did, making statements based on things that really can't be successfully denied. That's how I would learn. That could be the basis of a real discussion.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Zanti Misfit

Dear Zanti Misfit,

Not bad at all, until you got down to the end and lost control of yourself.

It seems as though your'e agreeing with me completely, and for that I'm grateful. That's exactly what I said in my OP, despite your effort to turn it around. We do have people like that. Those are the ones who insist that the grass is purple and the sky lime green.

Those positions can't be seriously held. I suspect if you said you were a person who believed these things to a crowd of reporters, or average citizens, or even some people with access to a search engine, it would be a contest to see which would be more prevalent, the boos or the laughter. But, I don't think you hold those positions. Do you?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I agree people shouldn't talk out their ass, but this is the internet don't forget. Anonymity, ignorance and trolling sometimes impede on world class debate. Plus you have to always expect the ultimate evasive response, which is that everything you think is real is not such that what you say is "proof" or "evidence" or the "rules" for logic and reasoning are all wrong. That's my devil's advocate response. I don't agree with it, but it is akin to when you were a child and your parents supported their decisions with "because I said so."

reply to post by Bassago


Are you telling me that Obama was not elected on faith? Because he sure never did anything to be qualified for the job. Politics and religion go hand in hand to. Political views are not black and white, both sides disagree with what the effect of every bill is going to be. Obama did the stimulus package to fix the economy and he says it works, the GOP says it didn't work. Which side is correct? The answer is not black or white.

reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71

As always, Charles, much respect and good wishes to you!

We may not always agree on certain topics, but I have to agree that there are many willing to disregard empirical fact to continue a specific line of argument or to push an agenda.

Perhaps it is the hubris of Man, that we are all guilty of in our lives, that drives us to protect the illogical or irrational arguments so that we may make ourselves feel better in our own beliefs and understandings.

Some of us are willing to let go of our preconceived thoughts and ideas given the proper evidence....some are not.

I think the key is to learn other people and their "style". If they are open to a real discussion where they are willing to concede...let them in. If they are closed, shut em out.

We must be willing to do the same, or risk being shut out.

SS

reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71

Dear Hoosierdaddy71,

I'm glad for your observations. Thanks. Keep it up if you have the interest.

Are you telling me that Obama was not elected on faith?

All politicians are elected on faith. We believe they have the ability to do what they say they will do, and we believe that they are, more or less, being honest with us.

Political views are not black and white, both sides disagree with what the effect of every bill is going to be.

Of course, that's fine with me. For a lot of the bills going through Congress, there is no one who understands it, let alone being capable of judging it's effects.

Obama did the stimulus package to fix the economy and he says it works, the GOP says it didn't work. Which side is correct? The answer is not black or white.

Ah, but on this one, I think it is. The reports show that income inequality went up 2% under Obama, but stayed flat under Bush. This is the weakest recovery ever. A smaller percentage of Americans are employed. Poverty is up, food stamp eligibility and cost is up. Median income of the American household has fallen. And on and on. Our debt has gone up sharply. The "Shovel ready" jobs didn't exist. Here we have some facts we can look at, and reason from. There's really not much evidence that the stimulus package worked.

With respect,
Charles1952

charles1952
Dear ATSers,
I'm willing to have a discussion, but I have no idea how to have one with such a person.

The only way to do it successfully would be to pretend you're having a conversation with a dragon. And who would willing choose to talk to a dragon?I think the colors are right too. LOL

reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71


Obama was elected based on faith he would do what he promised but that isn't the point really. What he did in regard to each promise is. The stimulus package is a wide ranging topic that both side could argue about.

I offer a simpler example, Obama promised to close Gitmo and he didn't. There are lots of excuses and finger pointing to why it's not closed but the simple matter is he didn't keep a promise he made. Very easy to verify but many will dodge, obfuscate or deny the fact. Yes, congress opposed him, no he didn't use executive power, the simple fact remains that he didn't follow through.

That's just an example, I'm not taking a side on the issue.

Respectfully, Charles, and I mean that, as I've encountered you on the boards before, and have nothing but the utmost respect for you…..
But…..

have you considered that if we are, in fact in a holographic universe of creating one's one reality, as ATS seems to lean predominantly towards with its membership and input, that all discussion of said politics, is, well…..strictly political, and therefore, meaningless, in a certain way, meant only for fishing expeditions, of a certain kind….?

This song comes to mind:

reply to post by Snarl


I would love to talk to a dragon.