An Epiphany Just Came To Me About What Obama Could Do RE: Sherrod

[SunsetDreams]

I think this will solve all the problems from here on out! The buck would definitely stop there! He should fire everyone in his Administration, and micromanage everything. He would do all the hiring and firing over lower level government employees. That way, the blame would deservedly go to him anytime someone did or said something. Let's take out all the middlemen, Obama isn't doing all that much anyway. He's already started the implementation, he hired and fired Sherrod himself.

Who needs all these people anyway?

Department of State
Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton

Department of the Treasury
Secretary Timothy F. Geithner

Department of Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates

Department of Justice
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Department of the Interior
Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar

Department of Agriculture
Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack

Department of Commerce
Secretary Gary F. Locke

Department of Labor
Secretary Hilda L. Solis

Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

Department of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary Shaun L.S. Donovan

Department of Transportation
Secretary Ray LaHood

Department of Energy
Secretary Steven Chu

Department of Education
Secretary Arne Duncan

Department of Veterans Affairs
Secretary Eric K. Shinseki

Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Janet A. Napolitano

White House Chief of Staff
Rahm I. Emanuel

Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson

Office of Management & Budget
Director Peter R. Orszag

United States Trade Representative
Ambassador Ronald Kirk

United States Ambassador to the United Nations
Ambassador Susan Rice

Council of Economic Advisers
Chair Christina Romer

Out with the Middlemen, now!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet


:sarcasm:


I don't think it's possible that he knew about a low level employee being fired. Afterwards? Sure, because it was blasted all over the news, and some folks were then saying the Whitehouse played a role, because of hearsay. Someone told Sherrod that the Whitehouse wanted her to resign. Who was that? Where was the proof? It's not Sherrods fault, she was only repeating what she was told.

I will say this, if Obama did Micromanage the federal government, heads would roll. He would be labeled as a dictator, on the right and the left. The broader message should be, when is the public going to wake up to the likes of Fox news and the Breitbarts of the world? They do nothing but lie, and misinform. Fox News needs be shut down! They don't report facts, and they should go in the dustbin of journalism dishonesty.

Obama, IMO, did not cause this. He's not a micromanager. Is it an embarrassment? sure. I have faith that while he did not cause the fiasco, he will make it right.

[VMI Dem]

1. Exactly. This is as stupid as people blaming Bush for his appointments' idiocy.

[SunsetDreams]

2. Obama didn't appoint Sherrod

[VMI Dem]

4. And Sherrod isn't the idiot here.

The DLC'er appointee is.

[SunsetDreams]

5. no you are right, she definitely isn't

Who is a DLC'er? can you be specific? I have no idea who to google.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. Vilsack is a member of the DLC. He used to lead the organization. n/t

[SunsetDreams]

8. ahhh got you thank you :)

[Ignis]

35. How quickly we forget "Heck of a job, Brownie."

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. What was the time delay between Breitbart releasing his edit and her resignation being asked for?

And was was the President's schedule during that? It's probable that his staff knew about the story (in fact, they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't), and I'd say it's quite possible that they told him about it, and he may well have given an opinion on whether she should go. It's very likely the White House staff talked to the USDA before she was fired. As you say, Fox News pushed this, and it was national news. Indeed, didn't Breitbart trail it first? The White House would have been waiting to see what the story was.

Yes, there is a moral to all this: Democrats should not go into an automatic cringe when RW media conjure something up. It's possible Obama was among them,

[SunsetDreams]

6. It's possible, my problem

is with the assumption, that seems to be prevalent.

Vilsak messed up, no doubt, and I am sure he will answer to the President.

[Kahuna]

9. I don't know about that. The Prez looked liked he dropped ten pounds

when I saw him on TV yesterday. He is already working his butt off to undue the damage done by years of republican rule, brought about by the way, by so-called democrats who refuse to understand the political process on how change comes about. It takes time. It doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't even happen in 19 months. :patriot:

edited to add my patriot smilie :patriot:

[SunsetDreams]

12. Kahuna, I couldn't agree more

He's been doing so much, the last thing he needed was this right now. Vilsack needs to be on thin ice, IMO.
He made a mistake, yes, but it was a huge one. Obama will take care of this and make it right.

[zipplewrath]

10. Isn't it time for a beer summit?

Maybe they should invite Sherrod over for a beer, and give her a new appointment called, "Special deputy to keep us from doing dumb things" or something.

[SunsetDreams]

11. Why yes, give her Vilsacks Job over a beer.

:)

[Kahuna]

15. I like that idea. Every Dem in DC should be on the repuke antics...

They did the same thing to Wesley Clark when they cut and pasted his comments about his IWR testimony and they did the same thing to Obama when they only released his partial comments (I can't remember the topic right now but it was an interview on NPR). Shame on Vilsack AND the NAACP for relying on comments provided by faux and briebart.

[SunsetDreams]

19. Exactly

when are Dems going to learn? Vilsack, should have known better. He should have looked into it, before jumping at it. The NAACP, should have had a lightbulb go off in their head. "Hey this could be RW noise, because we slammed their precious tea party, for having racist elements. We should look into this first"

[JNelson6563]

16. lol Great idea!

:-)

[SunsetDreams]

20. I think so

:)

[Ignis]

36. +1, I can get behind this!

:D

[SunsetDreams]

38. I think most of us could

and would understand.

[tularetom]

13. Obama was probably unaware of the situation when it happened

I think that much is a given. But he is aware of it now and has been probably at least for the past 24 hours.

And I can only interpret his silence on the matter as approval of the way it was handled.

If he fails to deal harshly (and soon) with those in his administration who were responsible for this clusterfuck, he is as culpable as they are.

[SunsetDreams]

14. So last night,

when it came out that this was bogus. The President should have went on TV at midnight, or thereafter, and broadcast it while most of the U.S. was asleep? This, while wrong in many ways, is not a National Emergency. I don't say that to diminish what happened to Ms. Sherrod, at all, I think what happened to her is horrible. I think the hammer will come down today. He has already demanded Vilsack to review his decision. I would much rather him make a public statement when everyone is awake.

[tularetom]

17. It came out way before last night that it was bogus

I'm hoping that the hammer will come down today, but I'm not overly optimistic that it will.

And I'm very sad to say that because I really like this President. And I don't want him undone by misplaced loyalty to some of the incompetent cowards in his administration.

[SunsetDreams]

18. How much

way before last night? It just exploded on the news yesterday, and here.
She was just fired yesterday. The story did not come out as bogus until last night.

[tularetom]

21. I'm pretty sure I saw posts about it here yesterday afternoon

And I wasn't surprised when I saw the story on Countdown (I'm in Cullyfohnia so that comes on at 5 pm here)

In any event they sure didn't waste any time firing her after the original bogus story came out. On the other hand they seem to be fiddle farting around now that the whole thing has been exposed as a fraud.

They look timid and beaten down by the whole right wing assault on this woman. I can excuse Obama's lack of a response so far but he now knows enough about what happened that he has to take action.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, I'm a huge supporter of this man. But he is not being well served by some of his appointees and it will bite him in the ass if he fails to take harsh and swift action.

[SunsetDreams]

22. I'm not sure exactly

what time multitudes of posts came up about the story being bogus. I saw way too many that bought the story hook line and sinker yesterday. Vilsack, has proven to be incompetent here, at least as a "manager" over employees. He reacted way too swiftly, as did the NAACP. They should have known better, than to buy the RW spin machine. Some people on this site should have known better too. I can excuse Obama as well, but Vilsack, not so much. I believe Obama will take action, he already has demanded Vilsack review his decision. I believe he will make a public statement soon.

Believe me tularetom, I know you are not being disagreeable. This situation has everyone up in arms, as well it should. What was done to Sherrod, was appauling, and wrong. I believe Obama has an opportunity here to not only make it right for Sherrod, but to shine a huge laserbeam on Fox, and their distorted news.

[grahamhgreen]

23. You're right - anyone on the list who is pro-war, anti-labor, pro-monopoly should go!

[vaberella]

24. That's most of the people including the secretary of state. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

25. PS - that the whitehouse played a roll is not hearsay. She was fired by the deputy udersecretary for

Rural Development, Cheryl Cook.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsn4UTt9CuE

[SunsetDreams]

27. That's not the WhiteHouse

There is a huge difference between someone who works for the Dept of Agriculture, and the WhiteHouse.
The Dept of Agriculture is part of the administration yes, but it is not the Whitehouse.

[Cha]

26. Yeah, that whole "Smell blood and Blame Obama First"

MO ain't gonna work.

[DevonRex]

32. + a million. nt

[Oregone]

28. "I don't think it's possible"

Not even possible? Not even a remote chance eh? A woman is accused of racism by a professional hack that attacked previously and caused havoc, and his piece was going to be spotlighted on Glenn Beck (she was told this when asked to text her letter of resignation). Pretty extraordinary circumstances regarding an instant, knee-jerk firing. Funny how Vilsack would do that all by his lonesome without consulting the White House

[Kahuna]

30. Just because he may have alerted the WH, doesn't mean it made

its way to the president. Kapish?

[Oregone]

31. Its not even possible to have made it

You get it....not even possible


Thats one hell of a grand belief

[Kahuna]

33. I never said it was impossible. Keep jumping to those conclusions though.

You're quite good at it.

[Oregone]

34. "I don't think it's possible" is pretty much the same as "I think its impossible"

That quote is the basis for this sub-thread. Once you rule out possibilities, because of prejudices, you become rather incapable of objectivity



While I'm the type that doesn't believe in God, I most assuredly do not believe there is no God.

[SunsetDreams]

37. If I would have said the absolute, "It's not possible" then you might

have a point

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SunsetDreams]

40. LOL

Oregone, you really are working hard to get under someone's toenail.
It's kind of a lame attempt, it's as if you would rather concentrate on grammar, than an OP.
Was the thread not going the way you hoped? was it too respectful for your taste?
I'm sorry, now I really must go tend to my toenail.

[Oregone]

41. Look, its not about grammer. Its about stating an absolute elimination of a possibility

Eliminating possibilities eliminates one's ability to be objective.

Thats all. Carry on.

[Beetwasher]

42. What??? Of Course "I Believe" Changes The Nature Of Statment!

It's a qualifier. It turns a statement of FACT into one of belief. Do you really think that a belief is an objective fact????

"I believe there are no pink unicorns" is an opinion.

"There are no pink unicorns" it's an unqualified statment of fact.

It just so happens, in this instance, the belief happens to overlap with actual fact, since "There are no pink unicorns" happens to be objectively true.

However "I believe it's not possible" is not at all the same as "It IS impossible". One is a qualified opinion, the other is a declaration of fact.

You are way, way wrong on this, but it's quite revealing that you actually, ahem, believe this.

[Oregone]

43. "It turns a statement of FACT into one of belief"

Saying: "2 + 2 = 4" is a statement of fact

Saying: "There are pink unicorns" is expressing an unfounded belief. Appending "I believe" to it is redundant (if you did not believe it, you would not state it absolutely).

[Beetwasher]

44. "I Believe" Is A Qualifier That Turns It Into Opinion-You Realize Opinions Are Not Fact, Don't You?

That's a pretty simple concept, it's amazing you don't get that.

Just because someone states something as a fact, does not make it a fact, but it does change the nature of the statement.

"The sky is purple" is a declaration of a fact. It's wrong, but it's still a declaration and much different than "I BELIEVE the sky is purple".

Holy crap, I can't, ahem, believe you are really arguing this. It's pretty elementary. You are 100% totally wrong. But keep it up! It sure says a lot about you.

[SunsetDreams]

45. I believe in fairytales, the easterbunny, and santaclaus too!

[Oregone]

46. The only difference between a belief and a fact is facts can be proven

To append "I believe" to a statement may be some acknowledgment that your statement cannot be proven, but it does not mean you think it is any less true. In either case, to state the existence of pink unicorns with "I believe" or not, it still expresses that the issuer of the statement believes in the absolute authenticity of the statement (the qualifier merely creates a distinction between what they think is provable or not). I simply see no difference, in content, between proclaiming the absolute existence of pink unicorns as a statement of fact or opinion--in each case, it is clear the person saying it personally believes in the truth of their statement.

[Beetwasher]

47. We're Not Talking About Actual "Facts" We're Talking About DECLARATION Of Fact

Vs. a qualified opinion in communication.

Holy fuckity fuck.

There are actual facts which may or may not have anything to do with communciation. Then you have communication and there are declarations of facts during communication (which may or may not be true). Then there are qualified opinions during communication.

The sky is blue is an actual fact. "They sky is purple" is a declaration of a fact (that isn't true) during communication. "I believe the sky is purple" is a qualified (falsifiable) statement of a personal opinion during communication.

If you really don't get this then I'm sorry to tell you that you have a very serious deficiency.

[Oregone]

48. No, I don't see it that way

There are two constructs people build their immediate reality out of, which they both personally regard as equally true: there are "facts" (which are provable), and there are "beliefs" (which only become facts when they are observably true). Unless something is previously proven true to the issuer of a statement, it is, no matter how it is stated, being expressed as a belief by that person (but is expressed as absolutely true as any fact). To the person saying a belief, it is a reality--a truth yet to be proven. So to the person who says, "Obama did not possibly hear about this prior to the firing" and "I believe/think Obama did not possibly hear about this prior to the firing", in each case, their reality regards this scenario as not possible

Then there "ideas" & "theories", which are concepts about how the world may work, which are not regarded yet as "true", but working models that may potentially be so and have not yet been proven absolutely. You express an idea by saying something such as: "Obama may never have possibly heard about this prior to the firing". In this case, you are not affixing it as a belief and ruling out the opposite. It is not part of your reality, but an idea about how reality just may be, and an acknowledgment to the limits of one's own knowledge.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, a belief was stated. No matter how this belief was stated, to the person stating it, it is regarded as fact. My initial response was about how affixing such a belief and ruling out possibilities gets in the way of one being objective (Id imagine that Charles Pierce would agree). I stand by that idea that I expressed.

[Beetwasher]

49. It Doesn't Matter How YOU See It, That's IS The Way It Is

Regardless of your assinine spin. If everyone was able to make up the rules about communication as they went along, there would be no communication. This really explains a lot about you. Holy fuck.

Facts are NOT the same as communication about them. And declarative statements are not the same as qualified opinions. Period. You can have an opinion about it, but your opinion is just as wrong as the opinion "I believe the sky is purple".

That's the rules of communication regardless of your opinions about the rules.

[Oregone]

50. I think what you are essentially missing is what is going on in the head of the person talking

No matter how a belief or fact is communicated, they are realities to the person stating them; they are absolutely true to that individual, or else, they would not be stated as beliefs (beliefs are merely unprovable truths, but absolute no less to that individual). Clearly, this person communicated a belief about reality (which is yet to be proven), and in doing so, they implied the personal rejection of alternatives. And clearly, rejecting alternatives without proof interferes with one's own objectivity.

Somehow you are mucking the argument by talking about what they are communicating to others; I have clearly been talking here about what they are communicating about their version of reality, and how that unprovable version could cause person problems interpreting further evidence.

[Beetwasher]

52. No, It Doesn't Matter What's Going On In Their Head, Communication Has Rules

Period. Until we can read minds, what's going on in someone's head is totally irrelevant to communication. Qualifiers are called "qualifiers" for a reason. "I believe" is a qualifier. Do you know what a "qualifier" is?

[Oregone]

53. Do you know what a "belief" is?

Yes. It does matter what is going on in their head, because they are who I am addressing. They are expressing their personal belief in a certain version of reality, and http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html">I am suggesting that "belief" will interfere with further interpretation of reality. After all, beliefs are as absolute as facts on an individual level, no matter how they are communicated to others.

I give fuck all what you take from their statement, as it is communicated, being that it is clear to me they are expressing a certain personal, unproven, affixed belief.

[Beetwasher]

54. Communications Exists So People Can Tell You What's Going On Inside Their Heads

Because we can't read minds. The ONLY way you know what's going on inside their heads is THEY TELL YOU. IOW, they COMMUNICATE. And communication HAS RULES. That's how we understand eachother. "I believe" is a qualifier. Period. And it has a purpose in communication that distinguishes it from a declarative statement. It's clear you don't understand that, and frankly, that's a major problem FOR YOU.

Feel free to make up the rules all you want, and apparently you do that, but maybe that's why no one ever has any idea what the fuck you're talking about.

[Oregone]

55. And they communicated a "belief"

This is something people hold absolutely true as a fact (a subset of beliefs, which are provable).

So trying to say that because they communicated it as a belief, that it is not absolute to them, is just absurd.

No matter how a belief is communicated, it is still a personal belief, and still regarded personally as absolutely true as any fact.

Consider the following Venn (knowledge/facts and belief are all truths to the individual, with only proof as the distinction. Communicating a belief is to communicate the perception of an absolute truth)

[Beetwasher]

57. Holy Fucking Crap- "I Believe Beets Are The Most Delicious Vegetable"

Is that communicated as an objective fact?

Is that the same as "Beets are the most delicious vegetable"?

You have serious fucking problems thinking those are two equitable statements. One is commuinicated and qualified as true for ME (subjective belief). One is communicated as true for EVERYONE (a statement of a supposed objective fact).

[Oregone]

58. To the person saying it, beets are the most delicious vegetable

That is *THEIR* reality. That is what they regard as a truth. By affixing that belief, it will cause an internal conflict when they come in contact with a more delicious vegetable.


"You have serious fucking problems thinking those are two equitable statements"

You have a serious fucking problem if you cannot understand that expressing something as fact or belief makes no difference to what one personally perceives as reality. When someone says, "I believe there is a God", there aren't just throwing it out there as a possibility; that belief is a truth to them, waiting to be proven.

You are getting hung up on what the statement means to others as it is communicated. This is a bit of a red herring, as Ive always been talking about what a statement indicates about the issuer's reality.

[Beetwasher]

59. There's Reality Then There Is COMMUNICATION About Reality And Our OPINIONS/Beliefs About It

You have a problem distinguishing reality from COMMUNICATION about reality. That's obvious and explains a lot. :rofl:

[Oregone]

60. Here is what I added to my last post:

"You are getting hung up on what the statement means to others as it is communicated. This is a bit of a red herring, as Ive always been talking about what a statement indicates about the issuer's reality."

No matter how you spin it, the two following statements indicate that the person believes absolutely in pink unicorns:

"There are pink unicorns"

"I believe there are pink unicorns"

In BOTH cases we have enough information to personally confront them about their belief and their perception of reality. That is precisely what I am doing. Despite how either sentence is constructed, it clearly indicates what they perceive as absolute truths.

I think you've completely diverged due to worrying about what is being communicated to others, rather than what is being communicated about the actual person making the statement.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

64. Let us not pretend there is any misunderstanding among either of us

I don't think that is the case; rather, you are focusing on a completely different aspect as a method of distraction.

"I believe" is a qualifier and it has a very specific purpose in communication and changes the statement

While it may change the statement to others, it still indicates the issuer of the statement believes in it. In fact, it reinforces the statement is merely a "belief" (and not proven knowledge).

And what it means to others, in this conversation, is moot. It is not my concern. Im am addressing the reality of the person who made this statement, and how that reality can interfere with further perception of contradictory evidence

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

69. Well thank you for your continued incivility

Ive been quite consistent on this topic, and I think you have as well with your distracting divergence.

I was strictly talking to the person expressing this "belief" (a truth regarded as absolute, awaiting proof) about how belief may interfere with future objectivity by eliminating possible alternatives.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

71. How does the manner in which someone expresses a belief to others alter how absolute that belief is

...to them personally?

If a belief is not expressed to others as absolute, does that mean a belief is not personally regarded as an absolute truth to them? (recall: I believe there is a God)

If a belief is not personally regarded as an absolute truth, is it even a belief?

[Beetwasher]

73. Maw There's A Man With A Dark Face In The Banana Patch

'There is no difference between:

"I believe there are pink unicorns" (SUBJECTIVE DECLARATION)

and

"There are pink unicorns"'(OBJECTIVE DECLARATION)
-Oregone

That's all we need to know about you. :rofl:

[Oregone]

76. In the context of what someone personally believes, yes, I stand by that

That was the context Ive been operating in this entire thread....Im talking about what someone personally perceives as reality. Both those statements about unicorns would indicate the person saying them believes them and is insane.


As far as your divergence into another context, that being, communication to others, sure, I can see how my statement can be construed as inaccurate. Though, I think it is highly silly to diverge in this manner when I am clearly talking directly to the issuer of the statement about their personal beliefs (and how they influence their personal objectivity).


Context is king. If you think that taking that quote out of context proves something about me, that is a bit sad. If its taken you this many responses to point out my statement, considered in another context, is not accurate, that says something about you as well.

[Beetwasher]

77. LOL! The Backtrack Begins!!! ROFL!

"As far as your divergence into another context, that being, communication to others, sure, I can see how my statement can be construed as inaccurate."

Umm, this is a discussion board. We communicate with eachother. That person comminicated to YOU (or the board rather, but that includes you) quite clearly a qualified PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE belief/opinion (I don't think...). That's the fucking context. Backpeddle noted. :rofl:

[Oregone]

78. Again, you are confused

"That person comminicated to YOU quite clearly a qualified PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE belief/opinion."

Yes, and that person therefore communicated something they hold as an absolute truth that has yet to be proven (despite *how* it was communicated, which is moot, and as irrelevant as every post you have made here). And this "belief", subjective and personal as it may be in nature, is still part of this person's reality, and can interfere with personal objectivity.

That is the very point.

It doesn't matter how personal and subjective they express a belief. It is still a belief, and as true to them as a fact.

For example, the statement "I believe there is a God" implies that in the speaker's reality, the existence of God is an absolute truth.

What you call backtracking is clearly just consistency in the context Ive been in the entire time, despite your distractions

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

80. I do suggest you read:

http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html">The Fixation of Belief

Despite your ad hominem, there is little I believe in actuality. Beliefs are a part of one's reality, and shape how they perceive further evidence; they can lead to irresponsible and reckless behavior that damages others, as well as barriers to objectivity. I have little room for that pattern of thought.


"I got news for you, most reasonable, rational, mentally healthy people don't think their opinions are absolute truth."

Then, I would suggest those opinions aren't really "beliefs", but rather ideas (testable or not). And there is a large difference between an idea and a belief (which that link will be helpful in distinguishing). Ideas are fluid, and can change with contradictory evidence. But once someone affixes and idea into a belief, it is difficult to ever change it (much like the Theistic belief). Contradictory evidence will either be discarded or perceived in an erroneous way to reinforce the belief.


"It's amazing that you don't know the difference between subjective (opinion) and objective (absolute truth). But apparently you don't."

I clearly do, but on the personal level, to the individual, all belief is perceived as absolute, or it would therefore not be believed. When someone expresses their belief in God, to that person, it is an absolute that there is in fact a God.


"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." Nietzsche

[Beetwasher]

81. Sure, It's Easy If You Just Redefine Everything To Fit Whatever You Want

But words have meanings. Opinions are by nature, subjective and therefore NEVER considered "absolute truth" which is, by nature, objective.

But redefine away! I'll join you! From now on "belief" means "ham sandwich" and "reality" means "belly button". Wheeeeeeeeeee!

[Oregone]

82. Its rather irrelevant in this context if a "belief" is subjective

Because to a person who holds a belief, it is universally, absolutely true. If it were not so, they would not believe it.

Since I am in the context of addressing an individual about what they regard as absolutes, you are bringing up more irrelevant and moot points.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

84. I would suggest if someone didn't regard a personal belief as a truth, its not really a belief

Its merely an "idea". And, might I add, not a terrible way to think of matters.

Again, I do suggest you read the link Ive provided.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

86. On a personal level subjective beliefs are regarded as absolute truths

Again, you are attempting a distracting diversion after I corrected you regarding the context issue, because you must simply like to bicker further (so you've picked a new path to trod down)

On a personal level, beliefs are held as absolutes, or they are never affixed as beliefs in the first place.

Again, I suggest you read that link Ive provided instead of thinking up new ways to engage in an uncivil dialogue

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

88. "Me, I will laugh at you!"

You could merely do some reading instead.

When someone has a subjective belief in the existence of God for example, God's existence is considered an absolute truth to that person (notice how Im talking about what is going on inside that person's head. Talking about an external objective truth is yet another distraction).

BTW: have you noticed how you are no longer arguing about communication anymore?

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

90. No. Rather, to a person, a subjective belief is considered an absolute truth

We both know that *most* subjective beliefs are not absolute, objective truths external to a person. Of course, being consistent with my context since the start of this sub-thread, I am talking about what is going inside that person's head).

If a person didn't think a think a belief was true, they wouldn't believe it. But simply because their believe is subjective, doesn't mean they don't believe it absolutely. They must by tautology.

[Beetwasher]

91. No, This Thread (Per You) Is About The OP's Qualified Statment "I Don't Think It's Possible..."

Which is a qualified subjective opinion that in no way denotes a belief of an objective truth.

We can never know what's going on inside someone's head unless they tell us (COMMUNICATES). This person told us (COMMUNICATED) and qualified it with the words "I think..." which clearly denotes it's a subjective opinion.

"Rather, to a person, a subjective belief is considered an absolute truth"

No, to YOU it means that, to everyone else it's a subjective belief.

[Oregone]

92. Which means they regard this subjective belief as an absolute personally

"and qualified it with the words "I think..." which clearly denotes it's a subjective opinion."

As I previously remarked, just because a belief is by its very nature subjective, doesn't mean that the believer doesn't regard the truth as absolute (objective). In fact, they must, or they would have insufficient grounds to believe it.

So yes, while it is a subjective opinion/belief, that does not undermine the notion that this belief is held as an absolute on a personal level.

Can you fathom someone having a belief that God exists, yet not regarding that subjective belief as a universal truth? If they didn't, I assert that its merely an idea and not a belief to begin with.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

94. "Most people...understand that their OPINIONS and BELIEFS are SUBJECTIVE."

Of course I understand its subjective....beliefs are subjective by their very nature (unless proven and in the subset of "facts").

That said, subjective beliefs must be regarded on a personal level as true to the believer, or they are not "beliefs" in the first place by tautology

Please look up various definitions of "belief". And please, for the love of God, read that article I posted (its enlightening)

Belief:
Any cognitive content held as true
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.


Hence, when this personal communicated a subjective belief, they implied they perceived this "belief" as true (by the very definition of what a belief is). If they doubted the veracity of the statement to any degree, it should of been expressed as an idea using such words as "may". That clearly wasn't the case. They expressed a perceived truth.

[Beetwasher]

95. And By Definition NOT OBJECTIVE or ABSOLUTE

Yes, thank you for proving my point.

Yes, on a personal level they are believed as true for that person, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily believed to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE, even on a personal level. That has a VERY specific meaning that entails it's true for EVERYONE and therefore OBJECTIVE. Yeah, some people are misguided, and DO believe their subjective opinions are ABSOLUTELY TRUE. You are apparently one of those people. That's YOUR problem.

"I believe Vanilla is the best flavor". True for me, but I know it's not ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Duh.

[Oregone]

96. Not to the external world, no, but perceived as such to the individual

"Yes, on a personal level they are believed as true"

Absolutely, yes


"but not ABSOLUTELY TRUE, even on a personal level. That has a VERY specific meaning that entails it's true for EVERYONE and therefore OBJECTIVE."

Really, there is no difference. If you believe one version of reality is true, everyone else lives in that reality and therefore experiences that version of reality.



When someone says "I believe in God", they very well mean that the idea that God exists in reality--a reality everyone lives in--is true and absolute. The only distinction you can draw here is if someone believes in multiple objective realities in different dimensions, and believes they live in their own parallel universe. Only then could someone hold beliefs about reality that wouldn't extend to other people's realities. That person would probably also be a whacked out quantum physicist.

And now I am devolving into gibberish, because there is nothing left. When one affixes a belief, they affix it as true in every sense. Subjective in its nature it may be, it must be perceived as absolute to a person in order to have any basis to for belief. AND THAT....is the problem with affixing belief.

[Beetwasher]

97. Hey Everyone Reading This: Oregone Admits He Doesn't Know The Difference Between "Objective" And

"Subjective"! :rofl:

That's all you need to know about him!

'There is no difference between:

"I believe there are pink unicorns" (SUBJECTIVE DECLARATION)

and

"There are pink unicorns"'(OBJECTIVE DECLARATION)

-Oregone admitting he doesn't know the difference between "objective" and "subjective".

*My comments in bold.

[Forkboy]

98. The confab has been hard to follow as most of your posts are gone.

[Oregone]

99. I think you just have no argument, and instead resort to vicious attacks, red herrings & straw mans

Thanks for playing

[Beetwasher]

100. Is That Your Subjective Or Objective Opinion?

:rofl:

[Oregone]

101. You must not have much confidence in your "argument"

Otherwise, you wouldn't of spent such a portion of your "argument" spewing obscenities and attacks (many of which have already been deleted). And you think you have any right to tell anyone what is or isn't pitiful? And you think that you have any shred of credibility left? "Mock" me as you will, but it is you that have spent half the day painting yourself as a joke. Pure comedy gold. If you had any sense, you would be ashamed. Thanks to the mods, most of the evidence of your filth has been cleansed

Enjoy your night!

:toast:

[Beetwasher]

102. When Yr In A Hole U Have To Dig UP Snoogums!

:rofl:

[SunsetDreams]

56. Hey you two, can I take my Test now?

I'm falling asleep, information overload does that to you. I've memorized your powerpoints, and I'm ready :)

[SunsetDreams]

62. Mom!!! My Teachers Are Ignoring Me!!!

I promise I asked them if I could take the test, really I did. The F was not my fault!!

[Beetwasher]

63. Ok, How Does A Qualifier Change The Nature Of A Statement?

:evilgrin:

[SunsetDreams]

65. It doesn't,

it's still a no holds barred, no room for change position.

Can I have my A now?:P

[Oregone]

66. What is the difference between a belief and a fact (knowledge)?

[Beetwasher]

68. What Is The Purpose Of A "Qualifier"?

Are you claiming it serves no purpose whatsoever?

[SunsetDreams]

74. rut roh, Mom help

I'm in trouble with The Beet Teach.

Does that mean I didn't pass?

[SunsetDreams]

72. ok Oregone, I just know I'm gonna pass this one

A fact is this subthread is long.

A belief is this subthread is longer than a hair on a frogs ass.

[Oregone]

75. LOL

Gotcha. Thats cool. I guess....to make it short...if you didn't believe it, throw in a "may". If you did believe it, be cautious how that impacts future perception of evidence.

[Kahuna]

103. 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. There can be deviations. In the government

there usually are.

[Scurrilous]

29. K & R

:thumbsup:

[bvar22]

51. With these exceptions, I will agree with you:

Department of Labor
Secretary Hilda L. Solis

Department of Energy
Secretary Steven Chu

Department of Veterans Affairs
Secretary Eric K. Shinseki
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Obama would be better off getting rid of the rest,
ESPECIALLY

Department of State
Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton

Department of the Treasury
Secretary Timothy F. Geithner

Department of Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates

Department of Justice
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Department of the Interior
Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar

Department of Agriculture
Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack

And especially, ESPECIALLY
White House Chief of Staff
Rahm I. Emanuel


They ARE part of The Problem....NOT the solution.

The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)