[Vision2020] More Jim

[Phil Nisbet]

Chas

The point is that opinion pieces are by their nature skewed and not likely 
to contain a full set of facts.  I read Ivins, though I do not agree with 
her slanted arguments, because I want to know how facts are being slanted.  
I am more likely to read Ivins than I am to read Limbaugh.  The "Rush is 
right" mentality is something that I find distasteful.  Nobody, myself 
included, is right all the time and we are all prone to slanting, something 
that an intellectually honest person tries to correct in themselves.

The problem is in assuming that because somebody does not accept the 'facts' 
as presented in a one sided analysis they are blind and Pavlovian.  I think 
we can both agree that if facts developed by non-partisan sources are 
available those are most likely to be more balanced than what one would get 
from partisans of either the right or the left.

Further, purely opinion pieces that use 'facts' which are no more than the 
opinions of other partisans on one side of an issue are no basis for forming 
independent analysis of a problem.  They are opinions, not facts.  I can 
have the opinion that Standard Poodles are the best dogs in the world and 
base my opinion on the fact that the Standard Poodle Breeders Association 
holds the same opinion as I have to establish this as a Fact.  That would 
have little or no validity, because other opinions with the same basis can 
and would exist.  I need objective criteria, are the dogs in question tested 
and can we relate the qualities and agree what makes a dog the best in the 
world so that a true fact can be established.  Then of course we also have 
to be pretty darn careful that the testing done to establish the true fact 
is carried out objectively and not tampered with by partisans of one dog 
breed or the other.

It is in that that my trust factor for complete partisans, the rabid pundits 
who will warp any truth to make their point, disappears.  I do not trust 
Molly Ivins to tell the truth.  I do not trust Rush Limbaugh to tell the 
truth.  I trust them to tell only the portion of the truth that suits them 
and that will support their bias.  I can try to gain balance by reading both 
and coming to middle ground, or I can seek to gather independent sources and 
do my own analysis.  But I would be a fool to only take one set of data fro 
the most partisan sources and tell every other person that those were the 
facts and nothing but the facts Mam.

Phil Nisbet





>From: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>
>To: Phil Nisbet <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>
>CC: m1e2y3e4 at moscow.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] More Jim
>Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:35:20 -0800
>
>On 2/2/06, Phil Nisbet <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If I or Pat Kraut or Jeff Harkin or Roger Falen or G Crabtree posted
> > political opinion pieces by Rush Limbaugh and then asked somebody on the
> > left why they did not agree with the 'facts' we were presenting, the
> > response would logically be for you to laugh your butt off.  Its 
>opinion,
> > not facts that pundits tend to spin.
>
>I am decidedly on the left.  However, if I were being presented an
>argument whose author was Rush Limbaugh, I assure you that I could
>objectively weigh the argument on its own merits.  Arguments must
>stand on their own.  It would be easy to resort to ridicule or ad
>hominem attacks, but it is also intellectually dishonest.  As much as
>I generally dislike the politics of Rush Limbaugh, there is always the
>possibility that he may be right, and I can't fairly judge that if I
>have dismissed the argument beforehand because of prejudice I hold
>against the author.
>
>You are far too intelligent to employ such lazy logical fallacies.  It
>disrespects us, it disrespects yourself, and it stymies earnest
>debate.

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement