Partisan War Syndrome

Not having a statistician son doesn’t give your opinion much scientific standing, does it?  Maybe it was WTH.

Because your son is a statistician hardly gives you much standing to make such a judgment.

and

Not having a statistician son doesn’t give your opinion much scientific standing, does it?

Now, that is a CLASSIC definition of a straw man argument!

My objections to the site have already been stated.

1)The statements are fuzzy (evidence for that is in the comments being made by many people who took the test)

2) What value is the test as a true multidimensionality when the old LEFT RIGHT poles are left intact?

3) How can a Libertarian be pinned to two separate poles? The RIGHT pole to the “east” is sublabeled libertarianism contrasts with the LIBERTARIAN pole to the south (which is sublabeled Anarchist)?

lb, I think your laziness is endemic to your entire line of thinking…

Your sarcasm is a bit thick and witless, as usual.

Apologies. By deliberately falsely calling those exams populist, I am actually calling (smearing, actually) the compass as populist and indicative of everything pop culturalist.

In other words, its only claim to credibility is as a pseudointellectual parlor game. Fun, to be sure.

Sorry for having to dumb that up, but you didn’t seem to be getting the point.

1)The statements are fuzzy (evidence for that is in the comments being made by many people who took the test)

This is evidence that people are fuzzy on the concept.  Could you be more obtuse?

2) What value is the test as a true multidimensionality when the old LEFT RIGHT poles are left intact?

Are you saying there is no difference between collectivism and individual competition, anymore?  What are you saying?  Do you know?  I don’t.  Multidimensionality requires at least two axes in a Cartesian system.  Perhaps you could redesign it using polar co-ordinates or vectors.  that would be interesting.

3) How can a Libertarian be pinned to two separate poles? The RIGHT pole to the “east” is sublabeled libertarianism contrasts with the LIBERTARIAN pole to the south (which is sublabeled Anarchist)?

The lower, libertarian hemisphere is divided into right libertarian and left libertarian.  You don’t read too well.

Yeah, <b>I’m<> lazy.

And careless, obviously.

Luminous Beauty,

Good to see you here on this thread.

Do you think that your recent results invalidate your previous results? Or are both possibly valid and worthy of consideration?

Do you think the difference between “strongly agree” and “agree” is the degree of conviction. Niggling and wriggling room. And that a change in degree of conviction is not dishonest?

Do you think that a simpler, cruder test with only “agree” or “disagree” is a valid option and worthy of consideration?

Do people change?

I think they can and do. Some for the better and some not.

From wikepedia:

The straw-man rhetorical technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one’s opponents actually offer. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw-man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent.

However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent’s argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent’s argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion

It seems to me that merely asserting that something is ‘unscientific’ is about as weak an argument as one can make.  Hard to make a straw man argument if that is the case.  Prove me wrong if you can, or you aren’t too lazy.

Are you saying there is no difference between collectivism and individual competition, anymore?

No, I am saying that to label the defining difference between LEFT and RIGHT as collectivism vs individual rights is not only presumptive on the part of the creator of the compass, but completely destroys the whole point of pulling the LEFT/RIGHT divide on a thusly irrelevant axis.

The creator eliminates the whole point of the multidimensional spectrum.

Additional, and besides the point, that is yet another clear example of the failure of this questionnaire. What is collectivism? Is it a group of people who come together for a common purpose? or is it strictly governmental imposition of collectivism?

The Red Cross and the churches of America were the first to come to the aid of Katrina victims. Was that collectivism? Does supporting either of those two efforts mean one is necessarily on the LEFT?

The compass fails to differentiate between charity and government. And anyone listening to the LEFT on that issue knows there is a vast difference.

My finding of unscientific rests on the blatant failures of this system. Had there been real science behind it (or even a modicum of common sense), such obvious failings would have been avoided.

The lower, libertarian hemisphere is divided into right libertarian and left libertarian.

The extreme RIGHT axis is also labeled libertarianism. How can you have a left libertarian if the RIGHT is, by definition, libertarian?

You don’t read too well.

Exactly.

(straw man) Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

Exactly.

Hi, David.  Happy to be here. 

Do you think that your recent results invalidate your previous results? Or are both possibly valid and worthy of consideration?

I think the results are different snapshots in time.  As the variation is <1 the differences are probably insignificant.

Do you think the difference between “strongly agree” and “agree” is the degree of conviction. Niggling and wriggling room. And that a change in degree of conviction is not dishonest?

Yes. As long as the change of conviction is honest and not just an attempt to rig the results.  One can honestly change one’s view from agree to disagree, too.  At least I would hope so.  I think jiggling the results can be an honest effort of taking the watch apart to see how it works.  I thought some of the choices were very difficult to make.  It isn’t too much to think one would be curious about what difference it would make either way.

Do you think that a simpler, cruder test with only “agree” or “disagree” is a valid option and worthy of consideration?

I don’t think it would have as much accuracy.
This is a simpler cruder test.  I don’t like it much. 

Do people change?

I think they can and do. Some for the better and some not.

I think about the only thing one can say with absolute certainty is that everything everywhere in this material world is always changing.  It’s all good.  We just have to recognize it.

I am saying that to label the defining difference between LEFT and RIGHT as collectivism vs individual rights is not only presumptive on the part of the creator of the compass...

It’s presumptive and dishonest to change the definition of the right pole to individual rights rather than individual competition, which is how they define it if you could read.

What is collectivism? Is it a group of people who come together for a common purpose? or is it strictly governmental imposition of collectivism?

According to the site, it can be either.  Again with the reading comprehension.

The Red Cross and the churches of America were the first to come to the aid of Katrina victims. Was that collectivism? Does supporting either of those two efforts mean one is necessarily on the LEFT?

No.  It does mean that someone on the right may under certain conditions agree with what are arguably leftist views.  Does the prospect scare you?

The extreme RIGHT axis is also labeled libertarianism. How can you have a left libertarian if the RIGHT is, by definition, libertarian?

Libertarianism is obviously referring to the Libertarian movement. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, et. al.  I’m a left libertarian.  Do you think you can call me on it?  Why don’t you study the whole site instead of making foolish assumptions from such a casual reading?

(straw man) Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

Exactly.

Exactly how did I criticize the actions or beliefs of your fictitious son?  Where am I critical of statisticians?

Hi Luminous Beauty

I don’t like the simpler cruder test you linked either. They call the test “ The World’s Smallest Political Quiz “ and they are not exaggerating. Too simple and crude.

Thanks for your answers, as always, they were illuminating.

One of your answers had a thought that started me thinking on another tangent. I will think about it today and post my thoughts later. Thank you again.

Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 9:23 AM

“Why do you think the PC poll is unscientific.  Because your son is a statistician hardly gives you much standing to make such a judgment.  Did you have him make a thorough analysis of the methodologies and metrics?”
------------------------------------------------

This is WTH,

I referred to my son as the statistician — I was just making the point that anyone who wants the best possible data needs to tailor a more precise set of questions.

No, I did not have him do a study, but I did similar work for clients when designing direct response advertising. Gathering misleading or imprecise information is even worse than getting none sometimes. The approach varies with different products and services, but there should be a continuing effort to understand markets and customers.

To do this well more precision is needed than sweeping generalizations like, “never, always, most”.  This is just common sense if you realize the individuals being asked here can’t know what “most” people think, choose, or might do. “Always” can at best cover what has passed and presupposes the future. Likewise with “never”.

One of the questions was,”No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.”

My first thought was Strongly Agree, but then I thought of Radio Free Europe, Voice of America and the Armed Forces Radio Network and went with Disagree. (I’m assuming these all got public funding.)

In reality I don’t want the government funding due to the influence they then can/will wield. The BBC is a prime example of what can happen. Recently friends sent us an article telling how alcoholic beverages in Britain can no longer run ads showing good looking young men. The idea being they will influence women to drink too much. They have approval over the models used — old and bald is OK.

Another used the phrase, “always, ultimately, good for all of us”

Another example: “In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.” People above and below are the culprits here — but people need to obey the laws in order to have a civilized society and people are needed to enforce the law. It is not a class thing.

For these, I really have no opinion or frame of reference.

“Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.” and “No one can feel naturally homosexual.”

It does mean that someone on the right may under certain conditions agree with what are arguably leftist views.

Thus my objection to the questions and the map onto which the answers are plotted.

Why is voluntary collectivism a LEFT view co-opted by the RIGHT? To assume otherwise is to ascribe a libertarian view strictly to the RIGHT.

But (ad nauseum), the compass paints libertarians in contradictory colors, first as strictly on the RIGHT and then as a spectrum that encompasses both the LEFT and the RIGHT.

Again with the (selective-jc) reading comprehension.

Further,

Exactly how did I criticize the actions or beliefs of your fictitious son?  Where am I critical of statisticians?

Through his alleged incompetence, which you presumed to be the only one with special knowledge of.

Because your son is a statistician hardly gives you much standing to make such a judgment.  Did you have him make a thorough analysis of the methodologies and metrics?  I didn’t think so.

You don’t think so? Where did that come from? a priori? Presumption that you are right and anyone who disagrees must be wrong, regardless?

Where your argument breaks down, WTH, is that these aren’t questions with a limited range of answers of which one may choose, they are statements to which one can agree or disagree.  This removes the subjective bias for which the ordinary run of surveys, particularly the kind of push polls used in advertising and political campaigns, are so famously and justly susceptible.  You might like to consult your son.  Or a psychologist.  Not because I think you’re crazy, you understand.  To get a perspective on subjective bias that an advertising person, whose job as I understand it is to create subjective bias, might not have.

It’s a shame advertisers in Britain can’t use sex to get women drunk.  I’m appalled.  On the bright side, maybe old and bald will become the new ‘sexy’.

But (ad nauseum), the compass paints libertarians in contradictory colors, first as strictly on the RIGHT and then as a spectrum that encompasses both the LEFT and the RIGHT.<>

<i> You don’t think so? Where did that come from? a priori? Presumption that you are right and anyone who disagrees must be wrong, regardless.

Sorry.  I was being facetious. Regardless, I was pointing out an authority fallacy.  Specifically, ‘My son is a statistician, ergo I know this is unscientific’.  It was (again, I’m sorry) mistakenly directed at you, when it correctly applies to WTH.  It doesn’t in any rational way, imply the competence or incompetence of his son or statisticians in general.

Do you not believe there are left libertarians, or what?

Absolutely. But this isn’t about my personal beliefs, but the legitimacy of the compass. If there are left libertarians, I ask again, how can the extreme RIGHT axis, the horizontal one, be labeled libertarian?

The chart, and subsequent analysis, suffers from that ambiguity.

Jay:

Perhaps you could send an email to the PC folks, and tell them you find the libertarian/libertarianism thing confusing.  they just might change it to Randian Objectivism or some such.  Or they might just laugh their asses off.

Facetious sarcasm, again.  I know.

It doesn’t in any rational way, imply the competence or incompetence of his son or statisticians in general.

Regardless of the facetious intent (which I do appreciate), it does in fact call into question the competences when you ascribe an answer and conclusion to your own questions without knowing if the son or statistician actually did the research.

You blatantly assumed that because the conclusion was one you disagreed with, that the research could not have been done.

Putting theory ahead of facts. Facetiously or otherwise.

Facetious sarcasm, again.  I know.

:)

I think it might help if you understood the shaded italicized words Neo-Liberalism (libertarianism) are examples meant to clarify what is the actual label, i.e. ‘Right’. Right? Right.

“ Or a psychologist “

Maybe we all need to take some ink blot tests too !?

Clarity is not a word I would use about the compass.....If one uses multiple meanings for the same word, then that isn’t clarity in my book…

Regardless of the facetious intent (which I do appreciate), it does in fact call into question the competences when you ascribe an answer and conclusion to your own questions without knowing if the son or statistician actually did the research.

You blatantly assumed that because the conclusion was one you disagreed with, that the research could not have been done.

Not really.  More of a challenge to put up or shut up. I took the chance of being wrong, but I really liked the odds.  Still do.

My error was in thinking you were the one with the statistician son.  That you made the assertion of it being unscientific with zero, zip, zilch, nada argumentation for that assertion is well documented.  Have you done the research and analysis?  In this I believe have a more than high likelihood of being correct when I say, I didn’t think so. 

Putting theory ahead of facts.</i>

Better than putting my head so far up my ass I see daylight.

Clarity is not a word I would use about the compass.....If one uses multiple meanings for the same word, then that isn’t clarity in my book…

Just to clarify… libertarian and libertarianism are not the same word.

ibertarian and libertarianism are not the same word.

No arguement here.

One is a political philosophy, the other is someone who advocates or believes in that philosophy.

What’s your point?

(no facetious intent here, just an honest question).

Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 2:44 PM

“...these aren’t questions with a limited range of answers of which one may choose, they are statements to which one can agree or disagree.  This removes the subjective bias for which the ordinary run of surveys,...”

I don’t know what you read, but the questions I answered called for COMPLETELY subjective response.

Objective question: What time is it?
Subjective answer: Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party.

--------------------------------

“To get a perspective on subjective bias that an advertising person, whose job as I understand it is to create subjective bias, might not have.”

My clients were almost exclusively industrial accounts — very little attempt at anything but objective info.

“On the bright side, maybe old and bald will become the new ‘sexy’.” From all the shaved heads I’m seeing I think you’re on to something. Anyway, I qualify and would be available to do dark beer or whiskey ads at reasonable rates.

This will be a three part post for clarity ....

Part One .... People do change. We do have free will.

Rabbit, I know you were mainly directing your words “towards the reluctant brides” .

And I am thankful for the opportunity to defend my position .... and their’s too, if it happens to be mine. Uppity and Irritated. All is always forgiven. Please forgive me.

But your words, some of them, were for me too. Here is an example that struck me :

Rabbit says: “He still cannot accept the implication that dishonesty is necessarily only changing from yes to no.”

Rabbit, that is not only my implication . It is my assertion on both counts.

Strong to mild and yes to no. BOTH.

People do change. We do have free will.

Maybe they don’t even know they were dishonest? Maybe they are being honest now? You insinuate that they are trying to alter the results to fit their personal fantasies. Should we be hooking people up to lie detector test when they answer? Or sending them to a psychologist for ink blot tests? How do you measure strong or mild? These are personal questions and the definitions applied are personal as well. My strong may be your mild. It is all subjective if you like.

People do have free will. The test did not make them what they are. They do.

In the final analysis : This is a self examination. Honesty and reasonableness is a given if we want to relate our results to one another. I am honest and trust that others are as well. If they are not ... what can I do except be, hopefully, a good example. Hope for the best and believe who you will, subjectively of course.

People do change. We do have free will.

Part Two ..... People do change. We do have free will.

More on the matter :

I ask Luminous Beauty : Do you think the difference between “strongly agree” and “agree” is the degree of conviction. Niggling and wriggling room. And that a change in degree of conviction is not dishonest?

Luminous Beauty says : “Yes. As long as the change of conviction is honest and not just an attempt to rig the results. One can honestly change one’s view from agree to disagree, too. At least I would hope so. I think jiggling the results can be an honest effort of taking the watch apart to see how it works. I thought some of the choices were very difficult to make. It isn’t too much to think one would be curious about what difference it would make either way. ”

So much here:

Honesty and Dishonesty. Self Examination , ie. “jiggling the results can be an honest effort of taking the watch apart to see how it works.” Change .... and Curiosity , ie. “about what difference it would make either way” <b>

Luminous Beauty says :<b> “One can honestly change one’s view from agree to disagree, too. At least I would hope so.”

... which leads to ...

Part Three ..... People do change. We do have free will.

People do change. Sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.

Defending people who seek better change for themselves.

Defending people who seek better change for others.

I would hope that if someone was wrong about something that those who are right about that something would be gracious enough to allow those who were wrong to join the right position.

Would those that are right tell those who were wrong they must remain wrong.?
Sorry, change is not allowed?
Sorry, carry on being ignorant and/or deluded?

Where is the free will?

Free will exists.

Live as if we do have free will (even if it is an illusion as some may suggest)

If not, we are sock puppets and not responsible for what we do.

We must treat each other as if we do have free will.

If everyone is a No Free Will Sock Puppet why bother talking?

It leads to despair and dissillusionment.

I think that we are free, and I don’t think it is an illusion.

Whew, that is a lot of comment for me… and only one HTML mistake. I am learning.

Sorry if it went off onto a free will tangent but ..

I see people afraid to change. Afraid of the possibilty.

I see people who don’t think it is possible for others to change.

So I went on a bit of a rant.

And hopefully everyone changes for the better.

I Will Be Who I Will To Be.

WTH:

I don’t know what you read, but the questions I answered called for COMPLETELY subjective
response.

Well then, I don’t know what you read but the political compass quiz is a series of statements, not questions, I repeat, they are not questions, to which the responses are agree/disagree.  They are intended as a measure of your subjective political belief.  The statements are statements that reflect various political, social and cultural biases.  By your voluntarily providing honest responses to these statements, by agreeing or not agreeing (this is a measure of your bias not that of the statements), you generate an objective, methodical, comparative construction of your <b.personal biases<b> within the two dimensional map defined by the two axes of consideration.  If there is any inherent imbalance in those results you would have to look at the weighting of the results for each response and at the calculating algorithm.  That the statements are biased tells you nothing about the methodology.  In an important sense, the objectivity of the quiz is preserved precisely because the participant is ignorant of the methodology.

Read this through carefully at least ten times, please.  I have to go cook dinner.

Jay

Define real science.

To Rabbit who is a real scientist, or at least was, real science is open minded and tackles experimentation with a scientific attitude.

So far Rabbit analysis of the results has been real science by the definition which has served real scientists for some time now.

You are a pseudo-intellectual, and not a scientists anus.  You are being patently subjective in all your criticisms and yet have failed to apply any of your criticisms to the actual question and how it relates to giving an invalid result.  Has Jay read the FAQs?  Would it help him?  Probably not because they would require an objective analysis and Jay has an illness in this regard.

You really should stop insulting luminous Beauty who so very obviously possesses a mind which outshines your dim glow by many orders of magnitude.  You do not look smarter being rude to superior people, you look even dumber, if that is possible. 

You have as has been pointed out before refused to ever consider actual facts which relate to any of your opinions. If it is challenged you ignore the challenge.  A good piece has been written which describes your type perfectly, Jay and it shall be re-posted after Rabbit has read the rest of the thread.  This is coming from page 4, and Rabbit is about to flip the page.  First he must just check something.

Showing off after Rabbit shows you had nothing which was more than ten minutes away on the net........................sigh.......

<frameset>WTH</frameset>

Rabbit agreed with your view about a different scale and still would rather see a finer scale than a cruder one.

Nonetheless I feel the questions are well selected and actually many are cleverly crafted to achieve the subtle separation between the various poles even including such apparently opposed opposing views which can and often are held by Leftists despite being generally viewed as right wing. Obviously the reverse and the other variations which could make every such reference to this format complex.

There are two main reasons I feel confidant saying this.

Firstly and this is personal you can take it or leave it.  Rabbit is an unusually perceptive creature about others.  He is quite used to being way ahead of everybody in one area, perception of “People”.  this has been shown both on the internet where it is apparently only based on words, but lies or otherwise, all words carry there own meaning and so much about language is far far more than mere words. The order and choice of the words and so many other things can convey as much as the actual content of what the words were meant to convey.  Not so much at a first meeting, but over time in a dialogue situation, even if that is an argument, often they are best.

So with this in mind Rabbit can say that the results appear consistent with reality as Rabbit percieves it. The evidence stands with Rabbit’s prediction of yourself and he as having very similar attitudes.  It is only the perception of certain facts whgich separates you and I as people, broadly speaking.  Rabbit would have initially expected to be more to the left and down, much more like Luminous Beauty, but was forced to accept something he already knew and that is Rabbit yet comes from a fairly conservative background and has never quite succeeded in jumping that last cliff into the abyss of Liberal and Anarchistic abandonment.  Something he has watched a few of his friends achieve over the years, and somewhat wistfully.  Instead after a brief sojourn on the road, rabbit settled down and had wife and kids..................................The point is Rabbit recognised the essential truth about his deepset attitudes which were reflected in the graph results................................It becomes clearer and clearer the more results Rabbit has seen.  Not the follow up testing people are doing, though that is only proving the thing more to Rabbit. It is impossible not to notice the varied reactions without excitement as a scientific mind. Provided of course one can examine the thing objectively, which is exactly what the problem is for Jay.  he has already shown he has NO objectivity to speak of.  It placed him exactly where he would be by Rabbit’s estimation too. Rabbit has always known he was following a fantasy version of Bush. He imagines Bush is a bit right of centre, as I said before, amd he also imagines that is where he should be.  He is incapable at this point of approaching the thing rationally, or anything which clashes with his pre-conceptions.

Of course it must be remembered that WTH is also quite capable of doing this, but Rabbit feels that you may actually be fairly aware of the reasonable accuracy, or at least coming to realise it.  The most telling thing which must speak in my favour for you to take me seriously has got to be my recent claims of our similarity, no?

The questions WTH has identified bear discussing in light of our differing views thinks Rabbit.  This is exactly what must be done if there is any doubt about the validity. Methinks it is possible to clarify much beeter and if it is as good as rabbit thinks it is worth it.  It is just one experiment. It produces an impartial set of results, the results say a lot if they are accurate, so the question is how accurate.

We have had all the generic criticisms of sampling and statistics so far but not enough actual analysis of the things to justify any of those criticisms.

First though Rabbit must clarify something with the David.

Rabbit has said from the start and it is good to clarify that we agree on this, that the test gives an accurate and valid set of data, for comparison.

When some, who obviously were perturbed by their results began to re-peat the test by deliberately changing the emphasis of their answers, and being so foolish as to claim they were now “happier” with their results, Rabbit pointed out that these results were worthless.  For all the reasons he has since detailed.  The point about dishonesty, which may or may not actually have been Rabbit’s actual word from the start, was clarified better by pointing out the subjects Tainted state as a test subject, the loss of objectivity in the experiment, the subject knows how to manipulate the result and whether or not he desires to, the result is scientifically invalidated for the purposes of the experiment.  Set up a new experiment by all means, and then you will get a range of results which are specific to that individual, they will if repeated even show that person’s growth and development or Change over time.

Rabbit has not really been trying to say that people never change, and even when Rabbit used those exact words he included a caveat.

It all comes down to context.  In the context of this experiment and it’s discussion, People do not Change.  Sure their attitudes may have some re-adjustment, even in a short term, but in the context of this experiment, people are going to give a true and valid response, the first time at least.

End of specific Monk message.

The arguments about the actual questions and how some were hard to answer and soem would have liked more or less choice. Some had no responses to certain questions at all.  The answer is staring you in the face without even reading the FAQs, people are all different and merely trying to place them on a linear scale has not been giving an accurate picture.

This is a three dimesionsional view, in a sense, and many of you are applying two dimensional thinking to it. Your critique of the questions balance is being given even without you have seen exactly how the questions are weighted.  The fact that you had no answer to some questions, and were forced to make a best choice has been allowed for, it is still a valid result.  You will have put the answer you were most comfortable with.

WTH you are right, it is possible to refine the test more.  But what about it as it stands, have a look at the FAQs, have you? Rabbit has only had a glance, but he only saw confirmation of what he had figured.  By all means show the thing to your son, but you sound quite capable of picking up what Rabbit is saying and seeing it in a clearer light.

It is not that one cannot criticise it and we should do so, properly, but rabbit wants to be sure you at least recognise the essential validity of the things before we look at the details because it is pointless to just have one trying to prove th test is valid and the other trying to prove it is not.

Rabbit proposes it is valid to a fair degree, it gives explainable results and consistent.  If we can begin from here then try and quantify it’s accuracy, or otherwise.

Rabbit’s turn to be facetious.

WTH
almost exclusively industrial accounts — very little attempt at anything but objective info.

Then you cannot have been very suceesful.  In Rabbit’s experience getting a leg up in that world means telling people what they want to hear.  How much more subjective can that get?

Actually WTH............ Luminous Beauty may have a point back there, it didn’t go up for Rabbit until he read your response, that is a very airy fairy way to define objectivity against subjectivity.

</i>Objective question: What time is it?
Subjective answer: Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. </i>

David
Rabbit has just finished reading your posts.  It occurs to rabbit that you are talking about life and people in general and this is not nor ever was Rabbit’s point. It was always the experiment, and it’s application which Rabbit is trying to establish.  YOU KNOW RABBIT DOES NOT believe people cannot change, why the hell else would Rabbit do what he does?  You know he seeks CHANGE, but thgat is not what we were talking about.  Rabbit is trying to discuss the validity of the experiment and you are trying to dicuss the eternal path of enlightenment.  Nothing you are otherwise saying is Rabbit in disagreement with.  He agrees with all you say about free will, and about choices and growth and actually Rabbit would disgree only to say that for the most part change is one way, very few souls actually change for the worse over a life time, most go forward in the long run.

But these things are out of context when discussing the results which people here now have gotten..

By the way rabbit has had Mrs Rabbit do hers and he is about to see her e-mail from this morning.  Rabbit would think she is closer to Nelson Mandela than Ghandi.  Probably Nortjh of Rabbit.  She comes from the Northern Hemisphere and Rabbit from the South, so it would be appropriate.

David this final one is a rebuke.

Now Rabbit reads how you use Luminous Beauty’s words.  You did not ask those things of Luminous Beauty in context and you are not quoting them in context.

within the very quote you used are the following which can be used in this context

<b>change of conviction is honest and not just an attempt to rig the results.<b>

Which was what was Rabbit’s point from the start.

Luminous Beauty also specifically stated that any changes on a second go are for him (OK the bald, old guy got me..), were very small and the implication at least is that there should be no appreciable difference from one go to the next.

If a person is incapable of answering most of those questions within a fair degree of accuracy of their own positions, the first time, how can knowing how the test results looked and thus being able to alter the results going to make a more useful answer?

tch tch tch................^^..............

David the test was as you have repeatedly, said most accurate the first time, why do you still want to say that if Jay wants to change his result that that is OK too?  Dude, Rabbit agrees Jay is free to do whatever he wants with his result.......................... but as far as Rabbit, ........and anybody, including you, by your own stated beliefs.........will consider his first result to be the best picture of him as a person, here and now.

Rabbit has ben calling them questions out of habit but now wishes to correct, Statements with which we agree, or disagree, not questions.

This is a critical thing about it which impressed rabbit and he forget even to mention it and fell into the silly trap of calling them questions too.

The definition is important.

To quote Luminous Beauty, who has said this more clearly than Rabbit, .........If there is any inherent imbalance in those results you would have to look at the weighting of the results for each response and at the calculating algorithm

That is where any criticism must begin, not poking about with generalities about testing methods most of which are taken care of by the scientific process by which the test is constructed.  Most if not all of the criticisms people have raised are adequately answered in the FAQs.  Maybe not adequate for some people, but is anything enough to convince some?

If only these people were capable of reading a paragraph and picking out the main ideas, and challenging them, instead of the format used, or semantics or some general trick of avoidance of the real issues.

You can start by saying that the US presence in Iraq is making things worse than they ever were, and instead of looking at how things were, in detail and comparing to now, in detail, they end up using WWII or the French Revolution to illustrate their contention that Iraq has never been so well off.

Obviously this is an example and not intended to chjange the subject, which is what it all boils down to.  People would too often rather change the subject than admit error.

Yes Rabbit,

Life in general.

That is why the Trilogy on Four Parts. 2 parts this, 1 part that, and 1 part ??

I acknowledged the tangent of the rant.

I am not sure if it was out of context? If it was for you I apologize again. My words were mostly facetious but serious as well. As much to you as to others. Your words provided the opportunity for it. I am glad that you and I know people can change. We have illustrated it for them.

Luminous Beauty,

I read your subsequent posts and hope you read my previous posts on the thread for the context. My questions had a simple context of their own though.  So did LB’s answers.

I shamelessly asked Luminous Beauty ,specifically, the same questions I was asking every one rhetorically. I ask, get answer, in context or not. Rabbit said he hoped others would weigh in on the discussion. My questions stand.

I trust that Luminous Beauty would not let my impertinence stand if it was perceived. LB : Your thoughts please?

Yes Rabbit. Let them do what they will. I do stand byt the original results as the best result now.  But with a little wriggle room. It was a good test for the reasons you and I and Luminous Beauty have all stated.

Jiggling the watch to see how it works is all I am doing

Curious Dave

PS The experiment is us...and I too think the flow of enlightenment is mostly one way ... for the better.

“Luminous Beauty also specifically stated that any changes on a second go are for him (OK the bald, old guy got me..), were very small and the implication at least is that there should be no appreciable difference from one go to the next.”

Yes Rabbit, The second go at HONEST results . Please do not forget that as I have said my second resluts were an experimant. The experiment being answering “Strongly Agree” or “Strongly Agree”.

I hope that if anyone is changing their HONEST RESULTS that it is that ... HONEST.

Mrs Rabbit

Economic Left/Right: -6.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.00

A little North, yes, Mandela. Good guess.

She is a clever economic numbery girl by the way.

libertarian and libertarianism are not the same word.

No arguement here.

One is a political philosophy, the other is someone who advocates or believes in that philosophy.

What’s your point?

David,

“Part Three ..... People do change. We do have free will.”

This reminds me of the only agrument with my wife that I can remember winning.

She said, “People do not change.”

Then I reminded her, “I used to be much nicer.” and she agreed.

I guess I showed her!

luminous beauty,

Yes, STATEMENTS — I appologize.

I disagree with something you said earlier, “This removes the subjective bias...”

IMO they will get a subjective reponse.

Your more recent comment, “They are intended as a measure of your subjective political belief.”

So it looks like, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.”

Apples and cumquats (or kumquats) rather than a disagreement.

Rabbit,

My comment:
“...almost exclusively industrial accounts — very little attempt at anything but objective info.”

Your response: 
“Then you cannot have been very suceesful.  In Rabbit’s experience getting a leg up in that world means telling people what they want to hear.  How much more subjective can that get?”

You are jumping to conclusions here, Rabbit.

When you are selling nuts and screws, oil heating pumps, aviation equipment, primarily B&B;(business to business) you are talking to engineers, not the average consumer. If you are talking about — threads per inch, gallons per minute or 5800 rpm — there is little room for subjectivity.

As for success? I have no complaints with the outcome of it all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are so perceptive of what people are like, you should have noticed by now that I hardly ever worry about telling people what they want to hear.

Thirty years ago I decided to grow a beard for the U.S. bicentennial. At a meeting with a client whose annual financial report I had done many times, the CEO said, “I see you still have that beard. (against their internal dress code) When are you going to get rid of it?

The other people around the table cringed when I replied, “I make you a deal — you let me paint over the one on your founder’s portrait in the lobby and I’’I’ll shave it off.”

H e had a better sense of humor than people gave him credit for and I continued as a supplier for many more years.

WTH:

Question with inherent bias:  Did you know WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast?

Statement without implicit bias:  WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast; Agree/disagree.

For the record I disagree, but only because I have no evidence to indicate otherwise.

Posted by luminous beauty on October 25, 2005 at 11:39 AM

“Question with inherent bias:  Did you know WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast?
Statement without implicit bias:  WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast; Agree/disagree.
For the record I disagree, but only because I have no evidence to indicate otherwise.”

And it is unlikely you shall ever find out.

luminous beauty,

“WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast; Agree/disagree.”
---------------

If this survey were better written you could at least be sure that with my numbers in the lower left quad, I would not be a fascist. The rest would till be an open question.

luminous beauty,

Unless, of course, I lied to the survey, to myself and to you.

(Which, as I keep trying to point out to Rabbit, is a possibility with any “FACTS” coming from the internet.)

Just to clarify… libertarian and libertarianism are not the same word.

Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 4:52 PM

-------

No arguement here.  What’s your point?

Posted by Jay Cline on October 25, 2005 at 8:51 AM

-------

Jay:

Why do you think the PC poll is unscientific?

Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 9:23 AM

-------

How can a Libertarian be pinned to two separate poles? The RIGHT pole to the “east” is sublabeled libertarianism contrasts with the LIBERTARIAN pole to the south (which is sublabeled Anarchist)?

Posted by Jay Cline on October 24, 2005 at 11:29 AM

--------

The lower, libertarian hemisphere is divided into right libertarian and left libertarian.  You don’t read too well.

Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 11:53 AM

---------

The extreme RIGHT axis is also labeled libertarianism. How can you have a left libertarian if the RIGHT is, by definition, libertarian?

Posted by Jay Cline on October 24, 2005 at 1:01 PM

--------

Libertarianism is obviously referring to the Libertarian movement. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, et. al.  Why don’t you study the whole site instead of making foolish assumptions from such a casual reading?

Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 1:53 PM

---------

(ad nauseum), the compass paints libertarians in contradictory colors, first as strictly on the RIGHT and then as a spectrum that encompasses both the LEFT and the RIGHT. 

Posted by Jay Cline on October 24, 2005 at 2:40 PM

---------

To repeat myself, Libertarianism is obviously referring to the CapitalistLibertarian movement. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, et. al. 

Libertarian is one pole of a spectrum whose other end is Authoritarian.  It’s the up/down spectrum, not the left/right spectrum. 

Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 3:24 PM

---------

I ask again, how can the extreme RIGHT axis, the horizontal one, be labeled libertarian?

The chart, and subsequent analysis, suffers from that ambiguity.

Posted by Jay Cline on October 24, 2005 at 3:45 PM

--------

Perhaps you could send an email to the PC folks, and tell them you find the libertarian/libertarianism thing confusing.  they just might change it to Randian Objectivism or some such. 

Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 3:48 PM

--------

I think it might help if you understood the shaded italicized words Neo-Liberalism (libertarianism) are examples meant to clarify what is the actual label, i.e. ‘Right’. Right? Right.

Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 4:01 PM

--------

Clarity is not a word I would use about the compass.....If one uses multiple meanings for the same word, then that isn’t clarity in my book…

Posted by Jay Cline on October 24, 2005 at 4:15 PM

--------

I think lb just proved I am indeed a troll.

I still don’t get it.

A rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit, except when it is a hareball for Fluffy.

Jay: 

A rabbit may be rabbit-like, but rabbit-like is not a rabbit.

Get it?

Explicitly:

Adherents of Libertarianism (a rightist political movement) may all be libertarians, but not all libertarians are adherents of Libertarianism.

So, the website is dealing with fuzzy definitions, then.

Funny, I thought I already made that point in my original critique.

Q: When is a libertarian not a Libertarian?

A: Exactly!

Nothing fuzzy about it, Jay, except the surface of your cerebral cortex.  Your mind is on vacation, but your mouth is working overtime.  Give it up, already.  If you do have anything closely resembling an even tangential valid point it is pathetically trivial, to be generous. There is nothing more obvious than that we both could be doing better things with our time.

Apology accepted.

Luminous Beauty, Do I owe you an aplogy for my possible impertinence when I dragged you into the discussion Rabbit and I were having?

Jay, you’re welcome.

David, not at all.  I didn’t have to jump in.  I did try to toe a line between you guys.  I’m happy you two have repaired your little contretemps.  Hopefully it will serve as model for some of the folks here, on how rational beings resolve their differences.

Thankyou for not Blockquoting.

Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

That’s about where I would have guessed. Not a flame-on capitalist but distrustful of many collectivist forms, wanting many areas of life to be beyond authority or others’ votes. Not a bad estimate.

Some of the questions were loaded as hell… so many assumed correlations of meaning and values. Several were quite irritating.

For what it’s worth…

WTH
IMO they will get a subjective reponse.

Of course they will, we want a subjective response from the sunject, WTH.

We must not have the subjects awareness of the outcomes affecting their response precisely because their respknse is unavoidably subjective.

Once we have completed the test, we can stand outside and make an objective analysis, if we are able. The alternative is to remain locked within a subjective outlook, failing to recognise the significance of the overall results, for want of comprehension.  As such one is merely unable to remove onseself to an objective viewpoint, it doesn’t alter the test results or its validity, only the subjects outlook can change, from subjective reaction, to an objective viewpoint, which is always a challenge mentally, only humans can normally do it.  .............I am a magic Rabbit...........look back at my results, I was at first a bit dismayed, but consideration of the broader picture, (others can read the FAQs for the same effect), made it much clearer.

WTH ............Rabbit was not being mean to WTH, as one who has seen more than enough of businessmen, entrepreneurs, and bordrooms, my comment is about the people who usually inhabit them, it was facetious but not intended to be malicious.

Which, as I keep trying to point out to Rabbit, is a possibility with any “FACTS” coming from the internet.)

WTH Rabbit has No problem with this staement, but it does not automatically follow that all information on the net is false, or that it cannot be ascertaianed.  For a VERY large amount of the information on the internet it can be ascertained with CERTAINTY the truth of important things.  You canot avoid attempting to do so, as you do, on the feeble excuse that nothing on the internet can be verified, because that is patently insane.  The daily reality is such that the internet is such a vitally alive and organic thing, that antrths of any consqeuence are quickly found and highlighted for everyone.  I have said it before and I must repeat, you seem to have only a very basic comprehension of what exactly the internet is. 

If you want books, fine, the internet will alow you to identify every book ever written about anything within a few minutes. You will often be able to find a synopsis of the books as well, and excerpts. But the point it the tool allows you to find the information.

You then cross check facts, if you are unable to accept them at face value, which in your case may seem like a lot of facts for a while, but you will eventually get a betterpicture and will begin to intuit truths in the way you onlyn tink you do now.

Rabbit is not too sure what this word was meant to be either>

antrths

We shall call it lies..........  Maybe it was untruths..........yes.

You’re welcome

Jay,
That’s so
sweet.

lb,

sorry. I meant that to be in response to Rabbit’s admonishment on blockquoting.

sorry for the confusion.

Jay, think nothing of it.  It’s your confusion, not mine, anyway. 

Just to be clear, this is a response to your response to my response to your response to Rabbit’s admonishment on block quoting.

I have to admit I find you fascinating, Jay.  At least in an anthropological way.  You are not an unintelligent or completely witless person, yet in intellectual debate you display less a fundamental grasp of reason and logic than the average Borneo tribesman.  If you were to show the same level of cognition in your ordinary life you undoubtedly would represent a grave risk to yourself and others.

It does seem a be a recurrent characteristic in many of those who identify themselves with the conservative movement.  Particularly those who like to make themselves obnoxious on left-wing websites.  I can’t decide whether it is a conscious absurdist strategy intended to inflict confusion and disarray in the ranks of what you see as the enemy (troll), or whether you actually are attempting to engage in honest and genuine debate to the best of your abilities (truth-seeker).  Maybe a mixture of the two? 

It does not make much difference to me.  You are a useful foil to hone my infant writing skills and to focus my life’s experience of thinking and laboring in the field of life’s trenchant problems.  For that, I wish to extend my most sincere and genuine thanks and gratitude. No irony intended, honest. 

In any case, I sincerely believe you should take a ‘fresher course in Logic and Rhetoric.  It would make you a better foil, anyway (This time don’t sit in the back of the class and trade snarky notes with your geeky friends, OK).

“You are a useful foil to hone my infant writing skills..”

... and sharpen your wit too. Both of you.

Anyone who can make me laugh scores points with me.

Thank you all.

To Jay

Your acknowledgement, of Rabbit’s request, is very much appreciated. In fact by so doing, you have put Rabbit in the invidious position of having to apologise to you...... again...........eew.....................^>..................

Rabbit was not very polite, and this was partly a consequence of carry over distaste from previous times, and partly due to Rabbits assumption that you would ignore the request.  Thank you, and Rabbit would like to announce that Jay Cline is the inspiration which brought all of us, finally crawling up from the mud of HTML ignorance.  ........Hooray for Jay. 

Rabbit still votes decidedly against smilies and anything really which detracts from simple straighforward discussion.

Every step forward should be reviewed if it despoils the environment.

Rabbit stands self rebuked but happy......................^^.................

I absolutely agree with this article.  Republicans can easily paint Democrats as “pure politicians”, trying to cater to whatever the public wants, because of their inability to take firm stands on issues.  Then the GOP can look like the party of principle.  HA.
What I don’t understand, is the comments here referring to the 1960s Civil Rights legislation almost as if it were too liberal because it lost the South.
This is extremely frightening.  If Democrats shy away from such legislation because of political fears, the country is in trouble: how are we supposed to move forward?
What is needed is an “information source” that can spread the Liberal message and combat the poison that is constantly being planted by Rove & Co.

Well what do you know, Government Accounting Office confirms key key 2004 stolen election findings.

Is this the way the way Democracy works is it?

Just as well as it wasn’t a democrat who stole the election by fraud, now that would be a crime.

kmg36

These sites and the internet in generall is all there is, use it well and pass the news on.

Here’s your big example to the world Scorpy and Jay and WTH.

According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received “more than 57,000 complaints” following Bush’s alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that “public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines.” The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O’Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

---------From above link

Rabbit,

I have NEVER said, “Nothing on the internet is true.” I have NEVER said, “Nothing on the internet can be proven.”

As a matter of practice I seldom say “never” — the above being exceptions.

My contention is that much of what is being accepted as fact which is coming from internet sources, is not “provable” just buy going to more internet sources. One could spend a lifetime just backtracking through the net.

Many internet sources may say the same thing, but then they may have used the same primary source. Think about how much is writen here with no source given.

People get quoted (and misquoted) who we have no way of questioning. In some cases we won’t even know if they actually exist.

I’m still curious why you think it is so important to prove your accepted beliefs. If all of us on these chat sessions were to agree on each issue, there is still nothing we would change materially in any national policy of any country.

It is not the beliefs which need to be the same, Rabbit of all people is most open to new ideas.  If your ideas are different to mine about the same thing then the dicussion is worthwhile and mutually beneficial.

If however we have different ideas because we have different facts upon which to base those ideas, then the FACTS are the thing which can and must be agreed upon.  If those facts can be established, then to not do so where there is disagreement is avoidance, and it is recognisably the only way in which people with your views can indulge in dicussion with people who challenge your world view.

You are sadly blind to your own blinkered condition, and it is incredibly weird to see otherwise rational people behaving like it.  It is recognisable more and more as a condition, common to an increasingly isolated group of people who denying the entire world beyond their program.

If misquotes or mis-information is included in a source somebody gives, then the rational thing to do, is to show this is so, with better information.  It is irrrational to refuse to consider anything within a source as unreliable merely on the strength of your argument. You are being generic when it is spceifics which count.  When we make a generic comment you prefer then to find specifics which are exceptions, which is not the point either.  Generalities are fine, in their place. 

If you say you support the WAR in Iraq, because it is reducing terrorism, you have given your opinion, and a supposed fact upon which you base your thinking.

If Rabbit then says he does not support the war, that is Rabbit’s opinion, and is not a refutation of itself. If however Rabbit challenges the fact upon which your opinion is based; <i>ie The War in Iraq is increasing the number of Terrorists and world Terror acts., then this becomes a refutation of your fact, and IT DOES MATTER.  If it does not matter to you that your facts are wrong, then even reasonable people like Rabbit and others here, will simply call you names, because anybody who does not care about accuracy and yet who would waste others’ time with nothing but biased opinions, is only worth calling names.

Now to simply say either of the above claims, is in itself only a statement, and as you say of no value in proving anything.

So Rabbit then says the war is increasing the number of terrorists and terror and he provides a number of newspaper articles which refer to documents or speaches by notables which refer to the fact that terrorism is increasing.  Rabbit then posts links to reports from various organisations, who have verifiable lists of the terrorist actions and relative numbers.  Rabbit maybe also posts links to reports about CIA and other intelligence organisations making similar claims.  These things are what would typically be considered sources for such a claim and upon reading them, WTH would have a choice to believe or not to believ what he is reading.  If he reads something he does not believe, and gives a reason why not, then it should not be too hard for Rabbit to better verify the fact or even agree with WTH as it may happen that the particular fact is unverifiable or even questionable. 

It could be that WTH could find something which says there are lots less terrorists and terror attacks today thjan ever before and we would look at that.

If however it became apparent that Rabbit has a case for there being more terrorism now, then WTH would in all fairness, then be expected to re-visit his opinions, based upon this fact.  You may yet have other reasons which buttress your support for the war, but you would at least no longer be able to claim that the war in Iarq reduces terrorism.  You may still have the opinion for other reasons, which hopefully you will also put on the table, but if facts begin to accumalate which collectively abolish your reasons for believing the war is righteous, the a rational being would re-evaluate those beliefs in as open minded way as possible.

The regular claims by you and others that Rabbit loves Muslims or that Rabbit hates America, are nothing but emotional accusations and they have no basis in anything Rabbit has ever said.  Just because Rabbit has as a referee to say that America is at fault, does not mean he is bised towards America. Just because he says Muslims don’t deserve to be demonised because of a minority of extremists doesn’t make Rabbit biased.  Just because Rabbit says that a minority of xetremists have taken over America, does not mean he considers all Americans to be reflected by those extremists.  The sheer ignorance and hypocrisy of that crowd is represented magnificantly by George W Bush, and it is regrettable to find so many peope who are just like him and just as bad as all the caricatures of Americans.  You WTH are borderline, only marginally free of being so deluded..  Do you think it is easy to speak thus to someone?  It is not. At this stage you have earned Rabbit’s respect, because you have shown the courage to come this far, but there is no easy way to tell someone they are so wrong about some things that they are actually supportinmg something which inm reality is the antithesis of everything they believe. 

An important clue which has been offerred before is this.

Your position is supported by a fast shrinking margin, it is gaining no new supporters and has not since it’s inception. Rabbit by this means polls in USA.  Those who believe as we others do, we so-called lefties, which is not so simple now as we know., our numbers are swelling fast.  Every day now we are seeing people who have finally opened their eyes and that is how they see it themselves.  The most common comments from them are, “all this time I thought I knew what was going on, now I realise the truth. everything has changed for me” Now that might sound scary and it probably is.  Rabbit has had thirty years to get used to the ideas which are now occurring to many more people, and so hasn’t felt, “safe” for a long time..  Used to living in an uncertain world means maybe Rabbit is a bit immune to the beastliness.

Rabbit does not want to prove his beliefs.

WTH Rabbit only wants to prove certain facts upon which those beliefs are based, where it seems we have differing views of the facts as outlined above.  If we can agree on facts and yet have different ideas, that is fine and it is a lot more common among open minded people than you may imagine.  Curious Dave and I have very different attitudes in some ways and we don’t agree on several things.  If you pay attention though, we do agree on facts, or when we don’t we will establish them and then decide.  The same can be said of most of us. Rabbit has disagreed about some things with others and they with Rabbit, but the sort of facts we base our “different” opinions on, are generally agreed upon, or we set out to achieve that. 

Again the comparison is that we already know what you know about things, but you don’t know what we know in addition.  everytime one of us tells you that there is more to a particluar story or history you get your back up.  Do you sriously think you know everything there is to know about each subject?  Then why do you refuse to look at any new information?

The new info might not turn out to be solid, it may not check out, and if you can show this, we would all be gratefull.  The information which we choose to impart, and defend, however is things we will ourselves already have questioned and researched so don’t be surprised if most of it checks out.  ignore the cries of Shills and Trolls who are always attacking sources and never the content, that is their bread and butter.  Many of the Shills cannot even access many of the sites we give as references because they are kept shielded from certain truth by their servers.  They never admit this, anm so have a blanket rule of ignoring things and of generic attacks on sources.  This is precisely what the programmed sheeple do so they can easily hide their dishonesty among all the confusion.

It is inevitable that new information will lead to your opinions changing, but that is not my goal I swear.  I want only for the truth to be accepted and then for all to make up their own minds. That is in contrast to having their minds made up for them by selective propaganda.

Don’t throw that back at Rabbit either he is not being selective, he is advising you to look at as much info as possible, not just selected sources. Rabbit is prepared to look at anything you have and defend anything satisfactorily or give it up.  How open and rational is that?

Lastly WTH when you are ready to get into the damned car, and buckle up, we have a short but awesome trip into the unknown to undertake..  List your objections to Rabbit’s outlook, if you feel you have devined it and allow him to defend his position based on facts, which will be established or abandoned as the case may be.  You have only to challenge Rabbit on the facts, and if he cannot give a GOOD reason for adhering to them you will recieve an acknowledgement of this if not a complete reversal of opinion.  Rabbit has no fear of any test of his opinions, and he knows that WTH has soon no choice but to put his own to the test too.  Rabbit has no choice but to admit the whole thing is for him a forgone conclusion.  Rabbit knows WTH belongs to us.  None would believe it but Rabbit knows that WTH is on the brink of realisation, and when the penny drops it is going to sound like distant thunder, to the alert.

WTH is more than he seems, a whole generation or at least a portion of them are connected to WTH by their very essence.  He is one of those kids who picked on the Rabbit as a strange youngling, but only in a peripheral sense. He is not one who led, but rather who joined in, but never quite knew why.  Today WTH is OLDER, like rabbit he has many summers and many battles under his belt.  But in some ways, we are not so far removed from that playground when we found ourselves separated by the crowd who knew not what they were doing or saying. 

Are they really any more clued in today, now that they have grown up?

Rabbit said,

“So Rabbit then says the war is increasing the number of terrorists and terror and he provides a number of newspaper articles which refer to documents or speaches by notables which refer to the fact that terrorism is increasing.”

It may be a fact that such an article exists, BUT it is not necessarily a fact that what the article says is true (fact). The same applies to speaches by someone, regardless if notable or not.
-------------------
“Rabbit then posts links to reports from various organisations, who have verifiable lists of the terrorist actions and relative numbers.”

They may be verifiable — who has the time to check them out and where, other than another inter net connection, would you go?
-------------------

“Rabbit maybe also posts links to reports about CIA and other intelligence organisations making similar claims.  These things are what would typically be considered sources for such a claim and upon reading them,”

No. Reports about the CIA is not the same as hard evidence. It may be an alleged account by a whistle blower, but unproven. It may be true or not.
-------------------

“WTH would have a choice to believe or not to believe what he is reading.  If he reads something he does not believe, and gives a reason why not,”

It is not up to me to disprove anyone’s allegation, rather it is to remain open to the possibility it may be either true or false.
-------------------

“...then it should not be too hard for Rabbit to better verify the fact or even agree with WTH as it may happen that the particular fact is unverifiable or even questionable.”

Here we are back to the crux of the matter — you are willing to seek “proof” from sources which I see only as more unverifiable, such as other internet articles, documents, letters speeches — any or all of which can easily be lies, doctored or just simply mistaken.
-------------------
 
“It could be that WTH could find something which says there are lots less terrorists and terror attacks today than ever before and we would look at that.”

I can only say there have been no attacks on U.S. soil, to the best of my knowledge, since 9/11.
There could easily be another anywhere, anytime. That is the problem with the current enemy, only one willing suicide bomber can do massive damage.
-------------------

I am not interested in proving anything to you. It would not change the outcome of this conflict between radical Islam and the rest of the world one iota.  Europe is about to confront the threat in their own yard. A recent National Guardian poll of European Islamists showed disturbing results from among their local population.  This is not a U.S. - only issue.

This is my considered opinion based on what I read, soldiers I speak with, various news sources and past experiences. It is not anything I seek to urge you to accept in any way.

And here you are back to safe and quite useless generalisations.

All of your generalisations are of no use if you can’t put them to any use to help you understand anything.  There is so much information that is lost to you, and you are wasting your time around here with that attitude.  You will constantly face being called ignorant, your opinions will face ridicule because they are often based on patent falsehoods, and your only answer to being proven wrong, and you have been on numerous issues, is to say nothing can be proven.  Rabbit cannot hold the branch of peace forever, and a greedy hypocritical nation of warmongers cannot fail to be called one if it cannot mend it’s ways. 

if Rabbit was to turn to the sort of un-referenced hyperbole as you, he could speak far more of Extremist elements who decide American Imperial foreign policy, the Fundamentalist Religious Zealots who attack Muslim Nations on the strength of fraud and lies, to steal their OIL.  It is also true that the President of the United States is the son of a Pedophile, has WTH heard of the details of that?  What are details to WTH so we’ll just let the statement stand.  America is the main reason that there is lots of Cheap Heroin back on the streets. Thanks to America reversing the Taliban’s clampdown on Heroin trafficking, thanks to DIRECT US support of the industry it is now flourishing again.  Well hell, why not.  Heroin is the USA stock in trade when it comes to making lots of fast bucks which need to be kept below the radar.  Can anyone say “Golden Triangle”? And George Herbert Bush and CIA all in one sentence?  The Rabbit will make a point of spouting lots of unqualified opinions for the benefit of WTH, and making reference to historical events, in as irresponsible a way as WTH thinks right.  No arguing with Rabbit now WTH.  You have set the standard.  You can say anything you want, and Rabbit is n ot going top challenge anything you wish to babble on about.  The Rabbit will in return not feel obligated to observe his usual measure approach.  You cannot just say Rabbit is wrong of course and ahve it mean anything, for Rabbit is telling the truth as he knows it.  Of course, unlike WTH Rabbit will be happy to provide references for anything which he claims as a fact, and unlike WTH Rabbit can defend his ideas.
In the meantime, the USA was behind the Lockerbie Bombing, and the Israeli’s are believed to have carried out the attck on the USS Cole

Europe is not confronting any threats in any backyards, where do you get your rubbish.  There is no threat in Europes backyard, no fundy Muslim groups have been causinmg any trouble in Europe. The biggest terrorist threat in Europe is NEO-Nazis. 

Of course everyone knows that it was agents of the Spanish police who pulled off the Madrid bombings, and it was the news of this which cost the Spanish Government the election, everyone except most Americans of course.

It is also likely the London bombings were done with BOMBS under the trains, not in backpacks as was claimed. It is certain that at least one of the four alleged “Bombers” is still alive and well and was not in England at the time it happened.

Bush knew the WTC’s were coming down before the first plane hit.  He gave away his foreknowledge in an interview later, claiming to have been watching the first plane hit the buildings on TV and then the second one.

It is so easy to just spout off unverified nfacts.  The thing is of course there are many on this site who already know much about thses things and know quite well that most of what Rabbit has just been saying is factual and verifiable.  So if it ever feels like people are talking over your head WTH, speaking of things of which you know nothing, don’t be too worried, it is nothing except our opinions being different to yours.  It has to do with the strange way people like us go about discerning things research, debate and open minds.  Nothing to concern yourself with.  You really are going to have a very unsatisfactory experience overall though, and this is too bad.  You shall reap what you sow.

It would seem that WTH is only willing to listen to rock hard rigorously deductive arguments supported by verifiable reproducible evidence.  His only use for inductive reasoning, it would seem, is to show that inferences cannot be absolutely proven in the above fashion.  This is a naive and disingenuous view.  What he is saying in effect is; since you cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, even if it has risen every morning since time immemorial, then one is in error for believing it will come up tomorrow.  It is not immaterial to point out that the sun doesn’t actually ‘rise’, but that the rising of the sun is the apparent artifact of the earth’s rotation on it’s axis. 

It’s also evident that much of WTH’s opinions are based on inferential beliefs that he has never thought deeply about, but is irrationally and stubbornly resistant to bring into question.  Opinions that are objective barriers to the potential growth of his understanding and wisdom.

In particular his shallow, simplistic and a-causal belief that there is an existential conflict between ‘radical Islam’ and the ‘rest of the world’.  He appears poorly informed about the complex, social, cultural and political history and nature of ‘radical Islam’ and it’s context in the Islamic world.  He shouldn’t be selectively taking as gospel the spew of some ‘radical Islamists’ (not what he himself considers a reasonable assumption according to his above rant.), nor assume those who share his peculiar construction of reality constitutes the ‘rest of the world’.

There might once have been a muslim fundamentalist attack on American soil and there might be another one or even a first one, one day.  In the meantime there are daily bombings and shootings of innocenty Muslkims going on by US troops.  You have killed At least 150, 000 innocent civilians so far and and possibly twice that number, not to mention the radiation and poisoning from Depleted Uranium, for the rest of time in Iraq.  All this because Somebody killed 3000 mostly Americans.  Somebody did it and soembody had to pay. Never mind if the ones who pay are not involved, so lonmg as they are Muslims, the stupid Americans can be convinced they are somehow a threat.. That’s right a country with a Military Budget bigger than the combined budgets of the next twenty countries on the list.  YET such a brave country of “World Policemen” actually live in fear of some of the weakest countries on the planet.  They live in such abject and belly crawling fear that they are prepared to suspend all conventions on human rights, as well as use torture and killing of jouirnalists to keep things humming along.  A country that is taking the killing of inmnpocent civilians to an industrial level.  How can such a powerful nation be afraid of such poor and weak people. To hear you gutless wonders bleating about A bomb going off inside America any moment, as if ONE blood