Facts, if they are facts, are facts. They are expressions of something that really is.But facts can be manipulated and mis-interpreted. They can lead to wrong conclusions.
Here's an example: All living humans breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide (along with other gasses).
That's a fact.
All people who are deprived of oxygen long enough will die.
That's a fact.
Some people who live and breathe have cancer.
That's a fact.
If you deny those people oxygen long enough they will die.
That's a fact.
If you deny those people oxygen long enough they will not die of cancer.
That's a fact.
Conclusion 1: Oxygen causes cancer.
Conclusion 2: Lack of oxygen cures cancer.
Both of those positions draw the wrong conclusion from the facts given.
That is why this blog is not just about facts, figures and "documentation."
It is about my opinion (ultimately the only one that counts here).
This blog is about the way I see the world, that is: my world view.
Other people have different world views and different opinions.
That's OK.
This is America. They have the right to be wrong.
They are also allowed to express their differing opinions on this blog in the comments section at my descretion, the only one that counts here.
They do not have a right to express their differing opinions here, they are afforded the privilege of expressing their opinions here.
Gotta remember, though, that my opinions, although humble, are always correct.
Arrogant? I don't think so.
So, make me a list of opinions you hold (humble or not) that you think are incorrect.
Go on...I'm waiting.
If they are incorrect, why are you holding them? Let them go!
When I express my opinion here, I am basing it (or them) on what really happened.
I don't feel obligated to (nor will I attempt to) prove them to you, especially if you're a liberal.
If you are a liberal, you just aren't intelligent enough for me to think you could understand my documentations.
I will make statements that are true, quite apart from liberals' evaluations of my statements.
And, if I feel like doing so, I will provide links to articles, videos, audios and/or web sites to back up what I have said.
But if I don't feel like doing so, I won't.
So get over it!
Go ahead. Read and enjoy! Or read and don't enjoy. Or don't read...I don't care.
This is my blog written primarily for me to express myself.
So, don't go jumping to any conclusions.
Just trust me.
18 comments:
The liberals are asking us to give Obama more time. (Drum Roll) .
I think 25-to-life would be a good start!!
Barack Obama walks into a bar with a duck. The bartender asks, “Where did you get the jackass?” Barack looks puzzled and replies, “It’s a duck.”
(Drum Roll)
The bartender says, “I was talking to the duck.”
CR: Actually, I'd like to give him one more time...one more time out the door, that is.
Joe said...
CR: Actually, I'd like to give him one more time...one more time out the door, that is
I'll second that!
Joe - No offense - but you always take up a lot of room to say what you most likely could say in a couple of sentences. Kind of like spacing - me - to take up room.
Would you agree with that - O learned one ?
Thanks for allowing this.
Joe, I'm just curious and I was wondering if you or your readers would have a rational discussion on this.
Of course I think my opinions and conclusions are correct but I know there's a possibility I could be wrong. I've changed my opinion on a lot of things in light of new facts and evidence or on lack of evidence to support my position.
Do you think it's possible you could be wrong? It's been my experience on fringe, far Right blogs such as yours (just my opinion), that contrary evidence causes you to become more rigid in your views. I've gotten, "There's nothing you can say that will change my mind" quite a bit. Are there any deeply held opinions that you have changed?
If you are a liberal, you just aren't intelligent enough for me to think you could understand my documentations
Are you poking at Libs or do you really believe it? If you do, I totally understand. Opposing views are held by stupid people. No need to consider them, you can be comfortable in your closed loop. No need to challenge yourself.
Respectfully submitted, Craig.
Conclusion 2: Lack of oxygen cures cancer.
---------
No.
Conclusion 2: Cancer patients can suffocate.
Remember, the left is here to help you live the life of the mind.
Joe, which one of us pushed you over the edge, XO, Craig or myself?
Good one, Chateau Robert!
"fringe, far Right blogs such as yours" Craig, I think if you compared Joe's blog to a far left blog, you'd find his, in comparison is centrist. That was one wild thing to call him. "Fringe" is particularly weird since half the country feels the way Joe does, according to voting and polls..actually a little more than half, it looks like.
what's a "non far right" conservative blog look like, anyhow? :-)
Why am I not surpeised that a right wing, religious blogger would shamelessly publish lies and misinformation packaged as truth?
After all, it's a well known FACT that truth and reality have a liberal bias.
I agree with Craig when he says "Of course I think my opinions and conclusions are correct but I know there's a possibility I could be wrong. I've changed my opinion on a lot of things in light of new facts and evidence or on lack of evidence to support my position."
That's been my experience as well. I have a scientific, fact-based mind. I let the facts lead me to the conclusion that they support.
Folks like Joe let their conclusion lead them in search for facts to support it.
Joe prefers faith, dogma and rote memorization over facts, critical thinking and intellectual discipline.
It's always easier to cower in the dark cave of ignorance where you can believe whatever you want about the world instead of stepping out into the bright, dangerous, reality of the world as it really is.
Craig: "Do you think it's possible you could be wrong?"
What I'm about to write is a true statement (although I refuse to document it).
I was wrong once last year.
Ducky: "Conclusion 2: Lack of oxygen cures cancer.
---------
No.
Conclusion 2: Cancer patients can suffocate."
You boring numbskull. That's exactly the point!
The two conclusions in the article were examples of how people can draw the WRONG conclusions from a set of facts.
You are so headstrong to show yourself as somehow superior, that you fail to grast the simplest of notions: that a set of absolute facts can be used to present a wrong conclusion.
The point of the article was that those 2 conclusions WERE WRONG!!!!!!
And were drawn from a set of irrefutible facts.
Sorry your spacious cranial cavity didn't have enough gray matter to figure that out.
It's been my experience on fringe, far Right blogs such as yours (just my opinion), that contrary evidence causes you to become more rigid in your views.
----------
This has been studied and the right will dig in even harder when their opinions are challenged. it disorients them and they can't do anything but put their hands over their ears and sing la-la-la-la.
I think Joe does believe he holds bullet proof truths no matter what the topic. Even if the topic is purely subjective.
The two conclusions in the article were examples of how people can draw the WRONG conclusions from a set of facts.
-----
I see. And you always draw the correct opinion and the left is always wrong. Got ya.
Now I get your drift after rereading, Joe. I apologize because you don't really reward and attentive reading with your average post.
Now lets' get back to it. The video of the moron you posted who claims a large rise in government employment.
Is he blowing smoke or not.
Do we ignore the statistics because they are issued by the government and believe every right wing jujyfruit you post up.
Am I to believe Ann Barnhardt's column that the cannibalism case indicates Satan is loose upon the land? Should I believe that haridan even though she clearly doesn't understand the difference between dismemberment and cannibalism?
Joe, which proposition can be proved?
1. From January to June, government employment declined.
2. Jean Renoir was a better director than his father was a painter.
3. Everything Joe says is true.
Are they fundamentally different types of statements?
Which one can't be proven?
Ducky; Which of these can be neither proven nor proved?
1. What Ducky says is true because Ducky says so.
2. What Ducky says is false because I say so.
3. Ducky always lies.
4. Ducky never lies.
I understand, Joe.
Ducky and other Libs don't carry it out to it's logical conclusion, to wit:
Whatever I write is fact.
If it is proven to not be fact, I will change my opinion.
Then, whatever I write is fact.
My opinion will always be fact unless it is proven false, whereupon I will change my opinion and then it will once again be fact, but, I will never, ever, write an opinion that I know for a fact is false at the time in which I write it.
I think you do a great job on this blog and as you stated it is YOUR blog and YOUR opinions.
I have yet to find any of your posts disagreeable. So, yep, you have been correct, in my opinion.
Post a Comment