Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

Considering that I have offered you actual historical facts only to have you dismiss them as "opinion", I'm curious to know exactly how we can both agree on what can be considered a "fact".

Also, reason and emotion are not very different, emotions cloud judgement. You admitted to being overly emotional about some of the topics we discuss, you even suggested I should try being emotional as a way to understand your point of view... Replacing reason with emotion is not logical and does not lead to a rational opinion.

Lastly, the "reliability" of a source seems entirely subjective to you. For example, I offered historical data from the Congressional Budget Office, which you dismissed as "opinion", while, in contrast, you cited the totally unsupported opinions of Robert Reich as being "fact". Again, this leads to the need for some standard by which we can separate fact from opinion.

Does their right include voicing opinions in favor of discriminating and/or promoting violence against some segment of the population?

<blockquote data-quote="GenSeneca" data-source="post: 173731" data-attributes="member: 1169">Considering that I have offered you actual historical facts only to have you dismiss them as &quot;opinion&quot;, I&#039;m curious to know exactly how we can both agree on what can be considered a &quot;fact&quot;. Also, reason and emotion are not very different, emotions cloud judgement. You admitted to being overly emotional about some of the topics we discuss, you even suggested I should try being emotional as a way to understand your point of view... Replacing reason with emotion is not logical and does not lead to a rational opinion.Lastly, the &quot;reliability&quot; of a source seems entirely subjective to you. For example, I offered historical data from the Congressional Budget Office, which you dismissed as &quot;opinion&quot;, while, in contrast, you cited the totally unsupported opinions of Robert Reich as being &quot;fact&quot;. Again, this leads to the need for some standard by which we can separate fact from opinion.Does their right include voicing opinions in favor of discriminating and/or promoting violence against some segment of the population?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GenSeneca, post: 173731, member: 1169"] Considering that I have offered you actual historical facts only to have you dismiss them as "opinion", I'm curious to know exactly how we can both agree on what can be considered a "fact". Also, reason and emotion are not very different, emotions cloud judgement. You admitted to being overly emotional about some of the topics we discuss, you even suggested I should try being emotional as a way to understand your point of view... Replacing reason with emotion is not logical and does not lead to a rational opinion. Lastly, the "reliability" of a source seems entirely subjective to you. For example, I offered historical data from the Congressional Budget Office, which you dismissed as "opinion", while, in contrast, you cited the totally unsupported opinions of Robert Reich as being "fact". Again, this leads to the need for some standard by which we can separate fact from opinion. Does their right include voicing opinions in favor of discriminating and/or promoting violence against some segment of the population? [/QUOTE]

Verification