I don't even know if I'm forming the question correctly, but I wonder how folks come to conclusion that become their opinions about what's going on in the world?

[example]

self analysis: Should I support [insert provocative issue]?

decision making process: Well, I like this and I don't like that, so....

conclusion: No!!!!!


or do you try and objectively weigh every factor, deliberate about it for a reasonable amount of time to ensure you're being as objective as possible, then form your opinion?


sa: should I pay my taxes?

dmp: (here is an example of one)
Define the problem
Gather facts and assumptions
Develop solutions
Analyze each solution (conclusion/opinion)
Compare solutions (conclusion/opinion)
Select the solution (conclusion/opinion) that best addresses the problem
The critical piece is in identifying every fact and assumption and thoroughly understanding them.

1. If I don't pay my taxes, I'm risking my freedom. Do I feel strongly enough about not paying taxes to become a martyr about it?
2. I am proud of being an American, but I feel like due to our frigged up system of government that the middle class are taxed more harshly than the upper class, who, even if they have their taxes increased are better able to hire accountants and lawyers who will help me to find shelters and loopholes.....
3. If I thought that my taxes were going to truly specific sectors like socialized health care or education, I'd be less anxious about paying them, but since I have no idea and assume that my tax dollars are wasted on frivolousness, I don't like paying them.
4. ......

c: A well informed no!!!!!:)



Anyhow, I'm curious as to how y'all come to your conclusions; on what you base your opinions on. The tax example is just that. I have no issues in paying my taxes, but what are some issues you feel strongly about and what facts and assumptions did you base your opinion on?

I'm not directing this at anyone, just thought it was apt.

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
-- Albert Einstein

i should get that tatted on my ass...

What sound do lemmings make?;)

not sure but since you seem to be with the "in" crowd mind wearing a wire for me next time?

Where is that coming from?

I'm guessing that I must've come across as someone you don't much care for or something.

Shucks!

No takers?

Depends on how complex the issue is. If it is complex then all or parts of the second option. If it's something simple then most of option one.

Opinion, for me, is formed only at the point were fact can be seperated from fiction. Beyond that point, all is opinion.

In respect to political opinion, one choice I can think of is 'liberal' vs 'conservative'



1) Will human's benefit from liberalism? Yes (because at the root of liberalism is faith in human kind)
2) Will my country benefit from liberalism? Possibly, if it's embraced
3) Will I benefit from liberalism? Yes, if my country embraces it.

1) Will human's benefit from conservatism? No (because the root of the conservative ideal is country and that country's presidence above all else, which neccesarily leads to conflict between countries/ideals)
2) Will my country benefit from conservatism? Most likely, if it's embraced.
3) Will I benefit from conservatism? Yes, as long as I am a part of the conservative establishment.

In my mind, conservatives are a neccesary group who's sole job it is to control the rate at which humans become liberal. Without them, a truely liberal government would accumulate too much power too quickly (ie. USSR). However, the ultimate goal (knowingly or unknowingly) is to be completely liberal in every aspect (which entails the never endeing quest to be more liberal, since the scale is infinite in either direction).

At that particular fork in the road, I have to go with liberal, because I like humans more than I like any subset of humans and therefore recognize that humans desire that all other humans are happy/good/content.


Liberal ideals have, intertwined in them, the idea of self sacrifce (minor sacrifice, major sacrifice, either) for the good of all humans, while conservative ideals have, intertwined in them, the idea of self preservation and pride (weather it's at the national or personal level). The whole idea of 'conservative' nearly equalls the idea of 'preservation'. This idea is flawed because of the dynamic nature of society and human experience. To deny progress is to deny being human (moreso to deny being alive), and progress is inexorably linked with being liberal because being liberal is the very acknowledgement that progress is inevitable; and because of that, being conservative is the acknowledgement that said progress CAN happen too fast.

For these reasons, I choose to support and concur with the opinions of people who are actually liberal-minded, as opposed to those who are conservative (or preservationist) minded (regardless of weather they call themselves liberal or conservative...many left wing activists are actually very conservative in their message).

I suppose my response obliterates the small 'problem solving' scale of the original example. Maybe I'm insane for thinking about all humans in the future and now as equall entities in the grand scheme of things. But one thing is true; personal pride hurts more than it helps, and most liberal ideals focus around ignoring personal pride for the betterment of everyone.


Honestly, who's life was ever made better purely based on their own pride in themselves...noone's. But whole civilizations have fallen because of an individual's pride in themselves.

I base my opinions of political issues on how they will effect the human race as a whole, to be succinct.

In respect to political opinion, one choice I can think of is 'liberal' vs 'conservative'
1) Will human's benefit from liberalism? Yes (because at the root of liberalism is faith in human kind)

I'd say most conservatives are very liberal, in the classical sense of the term.
Now if you mean liberal in the sense of sex in the streets, late term abortions, and the hijacking of marriage by butt buddies, then is that truly "liberalism?"

Since insane liberalism will destroy my society, I don't want anything to do with it.
Modern (insane) liberalism is a mental disorder.

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1)Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2)Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3)Insane Liberalism- characterized by nutjobs who are always anti-conflict, against nationalism or patriotism, pro abortion, anti-status quo, anti-border, anti-national language, pro america-hater, pro flag-burning, pro big govt, anti-nuclear family, and think "family values" is a derogatory term. Insane liberalism moves beyond the tolerance of different ideas, by forcing minority opinions, lifestyles, and immoral practices upon popular society.

Hahaha, where the hell did you get that definition...

If y'all want to move this into a discussion about the distinction between liberal and conservative, I can move that to another thread.

If the topic isn't worthwhile, I'd have gotten the message if there weren't any responses.

This is what I was looking for. MV, you walked right into it.;)Opinion, for me, is formed only at the point were fact can be seperated from fiction. Beyond that point, all is opinion.

In respect to political opinion, one choice I can think of is 'liberal' vs 'conservative'



1) Will human's benefit from liberalism? Yes (because at the root of liberalism is faith in human kind)
2) Will my country benefit from liberalism? Possibly, if it's embraced
3) Will I benefit from liberalism? Yes, if my country embraces it.

1) Will human's benefit from conservatism? No (because the root of the conservative ideal is country and that country's presidence above all else, which neccesarily leads to conflict between countries/ideals)
2) Will my country benefit from conservatism? Most likely, if it's embraced.
3) Will I benefit from conservatism? Yes, as long as I am a part of the conservative establishment.

Ok, so I'd ask you to back up your comments.
(because at the root of liberalism is faith in human kind)

Noted. Please cite some examples.

(because the root of the conservative ideal is country and that country's presidence above all else, which neccesarily leads to conflict between countries/ideals)


Noted. Please cite some examples.

From my personal perspective, I zealously agree with both of those statements. However, I also vehemently disagree.

You're being too general.

What is a liberal. I know that this is just an online car forum, but I think it's not too outrageous for me to ask you to reference some real examples that would solidify your assertions.

Counters:
-because at the root of liberalism is faith in human kind
-because the root of the conservative ideal is country and that country's presidence above all else, which neccesarily leads to conflict between countries/ideals

THE root? There are no other fundamental ideologies that would actually be more of a basis for liberalism?

Can this not be said of Conservatism? Maybe conservatives feel as though they are the 'honest broker' for their fellow man, and even though their brotherman may not appreciate the mechanisms the conservatives use to moderate the activities of his neighbor, it's actually most prudent in the long run. Maybe conservatives deeply car about their fellow man, but just seem to be unimaginative and hemmed up by the beauracracy they've created in the administration towards their fellow man.

If you were to ask me, I feel as if there are really no differences between how liberals and conservatives feel about their fellow man. In general, both groups have selfish people and both sides have selfless people.

However, I wouldn't state any of what I just said as my opinion because I just don't think I know enough to form an opinion.:D

Well...the liberal vs conservative was just a really good (loaded) example. What I was trying to say is that, with political opinion, I form mine by evaluating in this order:
1) is it good for everyone on earth
2) is it good for the US
3) is it good for me


I'm not sure it's possible to provide 'examples' of the things I asserted. Faith in human beings is about as fundamental an ideal as you can get, and it really is at the root of a liberal mind set (protecting personal rights over corporations rights, protecting privacy, protecting the right to do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, etc)

I see your point that many conservatives look out for their fellow man; however I would suggest that conservatives use the following scheme for making political decissions:
1) is it good for the US
2) is it good for me
3) is it good for everyone on earth.


But, in discussing how one forms opinions, it is impossible to not involve opinion. After all, if my 'opinion' was based purely on fact, it would itself be fact.


I didn't 'walk into' for anything, I just had a moment of inspiration about a dying thread, so I figured I'd stir up some discussion. Please don't pretend you're some type of forum pupet-master that sets up threads purely to illicit a desired response. THAT is letting your own pride blind you, something most conservatives should be very warry of.

I form my opinions on geopolitical issues by asking how the differing sides will affect my country, my family, myself.
I take into consideration that evil lurks in all men, and that the level of evil a person is able to commit is directly proportional to amount of power they have.
Throw in a little bit of "everyone has an alterior motive, regardless of the issue" and you see why I think the way I think.

Once you realize that all politicians are crooks, you'll be able to form rational opinions.

PS: I find this information (http://www.thegunzone.com/gunfighting.html) very useful in daily life. Kinda like "Art of War".

I form my opinions on geopolitical issues by asking how the differing sides will affect my country, my family, myself.



EXACTLY what I'm talking about...except you don't even take all other humans (that aren't American) into account...thanks for being an example of my assertation.

EXACTLY what I'm talking about...except you don't even take all other humans (that aren't American) into account...thanks for being an example of my assertation.

Oops...my bad.
I do look globally, when I deem it necessary.
Be honest, the suffering of starving children in Africa really doesn't bother you.

That's not really what I meant, but I do care about starving children wherever they are. You don't? That's pretty sad. Especially when it would be easy and cheap for the US to help them...since we do pay farmers NOT to farm, and we buy excess crops and destroy them.

I would say 'thinking globally when I deam it neccesary' is equivallent to saying exactly what you already said and one of the main points surfacing in this thread; conservatives put themselves and their country above their species, liberals don't as much.

I'm playing Mr Dad today & watching my almost 2 yr old daughter, Autumn, so I have to keep things brief.

What I was trying to convey is that while I don't like it when ****ty things happen in other countries, and I feel sympathy towards most of those that are suffering, if the issue has no effect towards me, I move on to something else.

I have enough of my own problems to worry about (finding a job, paying my mortgage, feeding my kids, making sure I got enough wood split for winter, etc) so other's problems aren't really important to me.

Look, if you were broken down along the highway & I saw you, I'd probably stop and render assistance.
Now, if I was rushing my child to the hospital with a rattlesnake bite & I saw you standing next to your burning car, sorry, I ain't stopping.
I'd call 911, though.

If I sound selfish, it's because I am to a certain extent.
And if you say you aren't, you're only lying to yourself.

EXACTLY what I'm talking about...except you don't even take all other humans (that aren't American) into account...thanks for being an example of my assertation.

That is his prerogative.

MVWRX, you're previous post (#15) is right on. I think that fundamental differences according to what you said is that on the Liberal:Conservative spectrum, the distinction lies in how their values are prioritized.

I form my opinions on geopolitical issues by asking how the differing sides will affect my country, my family, myself.

I do this before anything. If the answer means killing every man, woman, and child in Africa with a butter knife and then skull ****ing them to protect my family then that's my answer. I would do it without consideration. Simply put, if a 1000 innocent people stood at gunpoint with the sure chance of being saved if I helped them only to have my family die in the process, then they are as good as worm food without me giving one tenth of a ****.

Same thing applies for my country and myself but not quite on par with the importance of my family. MVWRX, the reason why protecting and defending your country is vital is because of where you would be without it. If you took away the concept of borders and everything a 1st world country provides (protection, civilized structure, starbucks and pizzahut), then you're left to defend yourself by survival of the fittest for you and those you love. Doing what's in your best interest is not selfish or asshaterish, it's survival.

If my family is not directly connected with the issue I tend to take more of a utilitarian or logical approach. By logical I accept the fact man is capable of good and evil but try not to give people too much credit. By that I mean the most reasonable explanation for a series of events or path of least resistance is usually closer to the truth than an outlandish assumption. This is exactly why I cannot stand conspiracy theories.

But, in discussing how one forms opinions, it is impossible to not involve opinion. After all, if my 'opinion' was based purely on fact, it would itself be fact.


I didn't 'walk into' for anything, I just had a moment of inspiration about a dying thread, so I figured I'd stir up some discussion. Please don't pretend you're some type of forum pupet-master that sets up threads purely to illicit a desired response. THAT is letting your own pride blind you, something most conservatives should be very warry of.

WRONG!

Ha ha ha.

I haven't forgotten that I'm a terrible righter and not really much of a tawker.

The thread stemmed from the fact that I am so hesitant to form an opinion or take sides or leave the gray area, but also because I get awfully frustrated when I see or hear people so zealously trying to make a point about something that I don't believe they truly have a mastery of.

I don't know anything but I really try and look at issues from any other perspective that occurs to me as best as I can.

For instance, I generally feel no differently than any other American about 9/11....but I have genuinely tried to gain the perspective of a young Muslim born and raised in South West Asia. I still could never condone what they have done, but you know it made me question what my ancestors have done as well. Why am I the devil? Am I a devil or are the Muslim zealots just generalizing? Boy, I'd better be careful and not try to gain their perspective too much or I might become sympathetic (never happen.) I've tried to remove 9/11 as a means of trying to see their issue better (take away the event in order to temporarily erase whatever hostility I may have so that I can look at the overall issue without so much emotion.)

I won't go too far into what conclusion that has lead me to. Obviously I'm still outraged about the WTC and the suicide bombers, but I have been wrestling with questions as to what we have done to provoke them.

I don't have enough facts nor assumptions. I am pro-America (although I'm not as sure what that TRULY means anymore). I am still totally devoted to my profession and my oath. No matter what, I will continue to do my job, no matter what that is...and I am a trigger puller, no matter what conclusions I come to purely because of my oath.

I am free to make the decision as to what I personally consider to be lawful orders, given by my commander-in-chief even, but I think we've got a long way to go before he nears the point where his orders have become illegal.

I don't know if any of this makes sense. Probably doesn't, but I don't care. I'm trying to put down my thoughts as clearly as I can, but if I don't I'll just retort in an effort to clarify if it seems important enough. Don't get your panties in a wad. It's just words from someone you've never met.

Where is that coming from?

I'm guessing that I must've come across as someone you don't much care for or something.

Shucks!


nah just messing around mostly being my normal, arrogant anglo saxan self..

;)

all the **** i have posted over the years on various forums would make a very interesting psych profile...

if only the parts about trying to figure out what was real and what was game

nah just messing around mostly being my normal, arrogant anglo saxan self..

;)
Nuttin wrong with that.

MVWRX, the reason why protecting and defending your country is vital is because of where you would be without it.


Of course. But where would any of us be without our species and what our species did before there even was ANY countries. Humans above Americans, for me. I know we'll never agree on that one.

i get mine from fox news and my baggy of dope

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
-- Albert Einstein

...

;)

i get mine from fox news and my baggy of dope

Dude don't play. I have a friend that that describes to a T! :D

Dude don't play. I have a friend that that describes to a T! :D


Nascar and crystal meth ba-by!

Logic.

Logic.
Profound.....

That's like saying, "I think about it some and then make a decision."

WRONG!
The thread stemmed from the fact that I am so hesitant to form an opinion or take sides or leave the gray area, but also because I get awfully frustrated when I see or hear people so zealously trying to make a point about something that I don't believe they truly have a mastery of.

I don't know anything but I really try and look at issues from any other perspective that occurs to me as best as I can.

For instance, I generally feel no differently than any other American about 9/11....but I have genuinely tried to gain the perspective of a young Muslim born and raised in South West Asia. I still could never condone what they have done, but you know it made me question what my ancestors have done as well. Why am I the devil?.

truly have a mastery? so do you have a mastery of every subject you argue, if that were to be true then most people could only argue about one or two things.....

Its good that you are trying to look at the side of Muslims in reference to 9/11, that's what I consider using "logic". Looking at all sides of an argument or just the issue at hand and then logically making a decision as to what your opinion maybe on that matter.

Unfortunatly if there's one thing I've learned in this forum it's that 'logic' is much more subjective than anyone thinks...

Unfortunatly if there's one thing I've learned in this forum it's that 'logic' is much more subjective than anyone thinks...

Actually, despite what you might gather from the rantings of people who post on this forum- that isn't really true.
Logic is a mathematical like set of rules for reasoning, using proofs and diagrams one can demonstrate the validity or invalidity of a claim based on premises and evidence.

On the other hand, what passes for arguments on this forum are often laced with logical fallacies, which fail to meet the criteria for logically proven assertions.

What is subjective is one's ability to comprehend the structure of various arguments, finding where (if at all) they are supported by logically relevent assertions and recognizing the ever-present fallacies.

^^I know...that's why logic is in quotes; I was refering to the 'logic' that is used here not actual logic...

Actually, despite what you might gather from the rantings of people who post on this forum- that isn't really true.
Logic is a mathematical like set of rules for reasoning, using proofs and diagrams one can demonstrate the validity or invalidity of a claim based on premises and evidence.

On the other hand, what passes for arguments on this forum are often laced with logical fallacies, which fail to meet the criteria for logically proven assertions.

What is subjective is one's ability to comprehend the structure of various arguments, finding where (if at all) they are supported by logically relevent assertions and recognizing the ever-present fallacies.
Spoken like a true Socrates disciple.:)

And beyond logical fallacies, I've learned that it's difficult to discuss topics when normal accepted rules are bent or new ones created.

Sort of like when ones argument is questioned, it's so easy to get defensive of oneself as opposed to one's "logic" and use the tactic of attacking one's debate opponent as opposed to the opponent's criticism.