Scientific proof that Democrats ignore facts.

Nice one-sided topic header you've got there.

In any case, I'd like to see a list of the actual questions asked and the alleged "discrepancies" before I'd trust the results. (Demanding to see proof - a clearly Democratic trait. )

- Bob R.

 

Yet demanding proof in itself is very single sided (perfectly in-line with this Democratic trait :lol: ). For to demand proof does not take into account the possibility the proof itself was intentionally made to either disappear, or not exist in the first place...

Lack of proof/evidence certainly does not mean lack of guilt...


h34r:

 

Suffering, the title of this topic is a misleading synopsis of the referred article.

Readers often save time by skimming titles. You shouldn't give folks the wrong impressions of your critical reading skills or the spirit behind your posts.

People may begin to wonder if Republicans are out to mislead, mis-communicate and make careless mistakes in an all-out effort to "win" in some pointless game.

I belong to a writers' critique group. We've discussed responsible writing. Your words have impact out in the world. Your postings do affect readers' opinons and reflect your skills, personality and mental processes.

Be careful with the grenades you toss about. One might go off in your hand. It's difficult to retract something once it's out and in "print". Claiming, after the fact, that you were trying to stimulate discussion or being cute doesn't cut it, especially if your writing causes people to dismiss research that has important things to say about human nature and politics.

 

Writing is as subjective as any other art form. h34r:

 

possibly, but it holds true for all politicians as far as I'm concerned. A saying that I heard a long time ago, one that I can't remember who said it, is something like 'never give the job to the one who volunteers'. Take all the glory and money and endless perks (such as the ability to give yourself a pay raise whenever you want and pass laws that you don't have to follow, a pension plan that is better, kicks in right after you leave office, and far safer than the one that the taxpayer might get but you get to tinker with) and see who volunteers then. Another saying, 'the first goal of a bureaucracy is to perpetuate itself'. Anyone who thinks that any politician is in office for the good of the people is naive. Politicians ignore the facts because they can and because the facts get in the way of their selfenrichment.

 

Or as that character in Alice In Wonderland put it so apty "words mean exactly what I want them to mean"

 

You make me want to throw my hat in the ring today -- I can give myself a payraise, pass laws I don't have to follow and that great pension plan! Not to mention some of the other 'perks'!
[Broken External Image]:http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.y...ctures/the_score/monica_lewinsky/scorepre.jpg

 

Squidy, I don't think you read the article Suffering referred to. It's an important study. It contains evidence that partisans of any stripe, Republican or Democrat, react in the purely emotional parts of the brain when cherished notions of "their" candidate(s) are under attack.

The most damning motive behind Suffering's choice of title would be that s/he meant to mislead readers and to slur Democrats, furthering the propaganda that Democrats are incapable of rational thought.

The most charitable interpretation would be that Suffering meant to stir discussion and debate but chose to do so in an unsophisticated manner.

The Times' article covering the same research: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24find.html?_r=1
The last portion of the article is most important: "It is possible to override these biases...'but you have to engage in ruthless self reflection, to say, "All right, I know what I want to believe, but I have to be honest." ' "

That last sentence, if readers can manage to push themselves to the end of the article, might save us from an internecine war between the political parties.

 

You're right, I didn't read it. I didn't have to.

For I think the responsibility lies far more with the reader than the author. If I'm gonig to be mislead by an article someone wrote, shame on me.

 

Writing can be a tool for artistic expression but I don't think any medical/technical writers consider themselves artists.

Painting a room in my house doesn't make me a Da Vinci or a Pollock. Getting myself "published" in a chat room or starting my own blog, doesn't make my writing "art".

If we hold our politicians responsible for the things they say, the least we can do is to hold ourselves responsible for what we write.

If someone writes something asinine or inflammatory and then posts it for all the world to read, then they shouldn't be surprised to learn they've made a particular impression.

 

People of any profession who are really good at what they do have an artistic sense of their work. A house painter wouldn't feel as if their work should hang in the Louvre ( http://www.louvre.fr/llv/commun/home_flash.jsp?bmLocale=en ) but it's that artistic quality that is what makes it so worthwhile. Perhaps everyone would benefit from finding the artistic quality of their work and in themselves, no matter how menial that work may be. Doing your work without knowing your artistic sense means that it will never be as good as it could be.

 

Well Spunky, I disagree with you on some points, and agree on others...

As for the medical/technical writers, this I tend to disagree with. For example, I do a lot of extremely technical writing, and will sometimes spend days "wordsmithing" a piece of communication that may be no more than several sentences. I think it is most definitely an art form, particularly when communicating highly technical legal or financial material/concepts for which there is likely no precedent.

As for holding politicians responsible for what they say, I agree, in an ideal world that would be, well, ideal. I don't think it is, and place far more emphasis on their actions.

Now, if someone writes something inflammatory and posts it for all to read, I agree, they shouldn't be surprised to learn they've made a particular impression, you reap what you sow, so they are responsible for their own communication of the subject matter, but it's up to ME to make "the call" so to speak. Here's a good example, Malorn is responsible for what he writes, yes. It is OUR responsibility to either believe him or not, reply to his posts or not, and I think that's, by far, the lion's share of the "responsibility". He, or anyone else, can write all he wants, it's the reader that has the power to give anything written credence...

 

point taken

 

I am much more worried about the impressions being made by visual media than what is written. For me to read something takes effort and thus the reader has the ability to filter. Visual and audio media on the other hand are much more powerful forms of communication as they require almost no effort on the absorbers behalf. We are all receiving audio and visual impressons all day long, most of the time without even really paying attention. Just think if at your place ofwork or home you were listening to me and my rants all day long, there is no way over time I would not make some kind of impression and eventually influence your thinking.

 

Sounds like a great job, but unethical. Our system is now so corrupt, I'm not sure it can ever be fixed.

Andy

 

Real campaign finance reform would mean limits on the amount of money spent. It will tough to make happen because most of the money ends up in the hands of big media, who in turn control much of the political agenda.

 

The blame ultimately rests with the people but whenever some politician gets run out of town on a rail based on something stupid and political, I remind myself that it may seem unfair but stupid and political is what got that politician elected in the first place.

 

mal,

who is that chick anyway?

 

There are artists and there are craftsmen.

My dad had very talented hands and a mind with a mechanical bent. He was a blacksmith and could repair any large piece of ranch equipment, usually retooling or making replacements of the metal parts. He made black coral jewelry, copper wall hangings, a Japanese hot tub out of red cedar, repaired trucks and tractors and bicycles. He did all his own car work and re-tuned his engines by ear. He tanned leather and made gorgeous hand-tooled western-style belts and shoes. One of my brothers has a holster decorated by dad for his gun collection, its surface completely covered by carved leaves, flowers, acorns.

Dad did carefully detailed, beautiful work but he wasn't an artist. He was an excellent craftsman.