Claude_Verret

Cheers to all the SS fathers. Hope you all had a great day.

For the Sabres yes, but the Bills have landed some coveted FA's that could have gone elsewhere...Bryce Paup, Takeo Spikes, Mario Williams.

I hear they are already planning a huge outside viewing area in Kingston for the show, I'm sure there might be some legal wrangling to do but it doesn't look like anything is scheduled at canalside on 8/20.

Final show to be broadcast live on CBC... http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/tragically-hip-last-concert-cbc-1.3639948

That's exactly what I'm not doing and exactly what this research is trying to help solve with the acrimonious political discourse in this country. The research is a tool for seeing the other side and understanding where it is coming from. I am seeing his point of view and have acknowledged that it may well be right, I just disagree because my moral foundation taste receptors don't agree with his. I'm sure D4rk could come up with a bunch of google searches and opinion pieces to support his positions and so could I. So you're right, what would be the point of that?

If only scientific research wasn't peer reviewed to prevent this very thing. He's talking about morality issues, as in core issues involving politics and religion and how it's in our nature to react by intuition and support it later by reasoning. At least read some of the cliff notes links I've posted or we really are just going to be talking past each other. and your intuition doesn't "think" it happens behind the scenes without you even knowing. Your reasoning is telling you how to respond how you are. Absolutely correct.

Read the book, this is 30 years of research saying that's exactly how our minds have evolved NOT to work. We don't reason to weigh all sides of an issue and come to a well thought out "right" conclusion. We react instantly to an issue out of emotion and gut reactions and then everything we do after is in service to supporting that initial intuition. I do it, you do it, d4rk does it, this whole thread is full of it. We are all walking, talking full to the brim bottles of confirmation bias. I didn't say his "conclusion" was partisan, but rather the way he was responding to me was being partisan. Dismissing another POV out of hand as wrong because it doesn't align with your "side" is the very definition of partisan.

Ok even though you still don't seem to get it I'll answer. I never said it was imperative to link Islam as a religion to terrorism, thats your interpretation of what I said. Ill expand on what I did say. I feel that by going out of his way to not to say it, and going so far as to scrub the terminology from intelligence and military circles under his administration, it is a reflection of what has been, in my view, a series of blunders and weak responses to a more dangerous and growing threat under his watch. Quite frankly I don't think it really matters how Bush, Obama, Hillary, Trump etc wishes to frame the war on terror rhetorically, at least not while we're dropping bombs and sending in drone strikes anyway. Those quotes weren't put there to accuse you of thinking me narrow minded. It was a selling point for the book. You seem like a well read guy, add it to your summer reading list.

He's actually a pretty engaging writer for an academic. I think you'll enjoy it. Here's another review from the NYT, so it's from a liberal viewpoint, and the author is a self described liberal as well. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?_r=0 I guess it really is taboo if the filter got it! The filtered word above is in.cest

I'm not because I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. I'm trying display WHY we on either side of the issue arrive at the conclusions we do. Look back at how you've responded to me..first I'm flat out just wrong, then I don't understand the issue, blockhead, five year old on and on. If those aren't responses from an intolerant partisan then I don't know what to tell you. Again read the links and understand the moral foundation theory. Contrast your responses to how I've responded to you, I've only stated that I disagree, why I do and that you may indeed be right and so might I.

No I don't. I'll wait until you have more "depth of understanding" about the moral matrices that are driving your partisan, yes partisan, responses myself and others who don't see eye to eye with you on this issue. It might serve you well to check out a few of the links I've posted about the Righteous mind in this thread and cease with the condescension. What you're doing is textbook as to why we have such an intolerant political divide in this country.

Sigh. Ok then. I'll just add the whole "lacking depth of knowledge" from you or anyone else as a criticism of another POV is once again wholly partisan. But carry on.

Lol, saw this coming. I actually had it typed out that I realize GW always clarified that we aren't at war with the religion of Islam although not to the same extent this administration does, but deleted it. But that had nothing to do with me using the term partisan, saying I'm "wrong" simply because he disagrees with me did. Like I explained later, he's not wrong and neither am I.

In your view of the world, sure. In mine, not so much. Neither of us are wrong. Its hard wired, your intuition takes you one way on this issue, mine takes me in the opposite direction ....and a whole bunch of confirmation bias later we have both reasoned our way to support our intuitions.

Au contraire my partisan friend, it simply means we view this issue through differing moral matrices.

Disagree 100%. Ain't America great?

It doesn't, like I said I feel his leadership in the overall war on terror in terms of strategy and tactics to be severely lacking. Using euphemisms to describe the enemy speaks to that directly.

To be concise, I feel his refusal to call it what it is and use euphemisms instead speaks to his lack of prosecution (edit: not understanding) in the broader war on terror, both internally and abroad.

See my post from a few weeks ago about The Righteous Mind:why good people are divided by politics and religion Our reasoning is a slave to our intuition. It's human nature, and it's why I said it's virtually impossible to get someone to change their mind on these issues, and most definitely not on an internet message board. Edit: Again I'd highly recommend all regular posters in this thread pick up a copy, it will shed new light on why "the other side" thinks the way they do.

Agreed.

To be fair to Trump, you have to leave off the period. I believe he's said stop until they can be properly vetted. Not saying I agree with it, just my memory of how I've heard him frame it.

Yes we do. But if leaders in those nations cant grasp the not too nuanced phrase that on it's own identifies the enemy as a small subset of a much larger population, then this is indeed a war we can never hope to contain, let alone win when a large part of our long game strategy is tied to how carefully we choose our words. In that sense I think it very strongly correlates with the overall coddling of the american mind.

I'll weigh in in saying that I think the resistance to and demonizing of people who wish to call islamic extremists/terrorists what they are because it may offend some is problematic and representative of a larger trend in this country, most often seen on college campuses, that have become paralyzed by "microaggressions" and "trigger warnings" The Coddling of The American Mind.

Check out the Bogleheads wiki It's an indispensable resource for index fund investors. Starting when you're young is absolutely crucial.

Well this thread sure has gone off the rails crazy on both sides. Carry on.