I both love and loathe debating politics with people whom don't know what they're talking about. I love it, because there are occasions when I enjoy schooling people with research/facts and logic, in hopes that it'll prompt them to think more critically and research more thoroughly on a regular basis, and also because I am sometimes humored by their elementary responses. I loathe it because after a while, it can get mighty frustrating trying to argue numbers and logic with bumper sticker slogans and talking points, and also because too many facepalms within a short duration of time can lead to quite the headache.
There comes a point in every such debate when a person (or persons) needs to accept defeat and walk away. However, it seems that sometimes, regardless of how badly a person got walloped, he/she just won't admit to being wrong, defeated, and walk away with a shred of class and dignity still left in tact.
I've run into just this scenario over the past week. About a week ago, an old friend of mine posted a chain e-mail on Facebook centering around President Obama and his "socialist" policies. Having seen this very chain e-mail before, researched it, and known it to be false, I copied and pasted the link for him and others to view. Before even reading the fact-check, he responded by saying, "I don't care if the story is true. The points it makes are!" The story was actually false, and the parable it presented was false as well, as this fictional Economics professor lectured about communism when referring to it as socialism. This guy eventually, without admitting he was wrong but insinuating as much, stepped down and left the discussion.
His younger brother then decided to step in and this is when things got really crazy. I've had to keep a stash of Aleve by my side for all the facepalms he's prompted with his comments this past week.
I had commented earlier on the accuracy of a story being relevant, especially when it's being used as a way to manipulate the public by inducing fear and attempting to spread a political agenda. When he said the bit about the story's accuracy being of no relevance, but the points of it being accurate, I countered this by asking what would happen in a court case if a prosecutor came forth with a fictional story, and the defense proved it to be false.
So, in response to this, the younger brother went on to admit that the chain e-mail was likely false, but that Democrats were just as wrong in inducing fear and spreading a political agenda with their blaming an assault weapon for the Sandy Hook shootings, when he claimed that it had been discovered an assault weapon wasn't the main culprit.
I hadn't heard this claim before, so I did some research and saw that the main source for this material was a conspiracy video. So, I challenged him on it and asked for him to show me the source which proved his claim to be true. I then proceeded to share links from the doctor who did the autopsies, the police on the case, the lead investigator, and all of them said the same thing - an assault weapon was the main culprit in the shootings. He then finally admitted to retrieving the information from the conspiracy video and I again shared a fact-check link which proved it to be false.
So, the original post was proven to be false, as was the younger brother's argument. But while the original poster walked away, the younger brother has yet to do so. He then tried to argue that everything is opinion. Nothing is fact. The cops, doctor, and investigator were just giving their expert opinions and while they may be 99% accurate and more reliable than any other opinion, they're still just opinions. So, the Democrats were just as wrong in spreading information that was 99% reliable as Republicans were in spreading information that was 0% reliable, since neither was 100% reliable. Yes, this is where he took the debate. There's no difference between the two, because neither can be seen as factual - merely opinion.
I then followed with the question, "Okay, based on that argument and the numbers we've agreed upon, let's say you've been diagnosed with a serious health condition. The doctor gives you two medical options for treatment. Medication A gives you a 0% chance of full recovery and Medication B gives you a 99% chance of full recovery. Would the doctors be equally wrong in attempting to prescribe you to Medication A as with Medication B, since neither were 100% guaranteed to result in a full recovery? Which route would you travel with your treatment? Would it be a difficult decision since neither was guaranteed? Would you see them as the same, since your life wasn't 100% guaranteed with either?"
He's yet to get back to me on that front, but decided to go back to the beginning of the discussion for the time being, when I asked how effective it would be for a prosecutor to bring forth a story to the judge and jury and for the defense to prove it to be false. He said that attorneys do this kind of thing all the time. The prosecutor will use such stories to build up logic behind the defendant's alleged guilt and the defense will use such stories to prompt a shred of doubt to at least one juror. He then compared that to the original chain e-mail posted. He left out one major detail, however. The original chain e-mail was proved to be false. It's quite a different picture we paint when we leave out that bit of information. It'd be one thing for an attorney to tell a story based on "logic" to persuade the jury to side with their case, with the opposing attorney not muttering a word about the story. It's quite another when that story gets proved false.
So, that's where the debate sits now. I'm half-hoping he responds, as I'm kind of curious where he'll try to take things next. However, the other half of me hopes he doesn't respond at all, because I'm getting a little tired of the conspiracies, lack of research/facts, lack of logic, and desperate attempt to believe that he's possibly 1% right, because if there's a 1% chance he's right, that means he's not wrong, in his own mind anyway. Yes, in his mind, a debunked conspiracy theory video is just as valid as autopsy reports, fact-checking sites, and in-depth investigations. It's quite something for a person to defend a debunked chain e-mail with a debunked conspiracy theory video. That right there is just my opinion.
There comes a point in every such debate when a person (or persons) needs to accept defeat and walk away. However, it seems that sometimes, regardless of how badly a person got walloped, he/she just won't admit to being wrong, defeated, and walk away with a shred of class and dignity still left in tact.
I've run into just this scenario over the past week. About a week ago, an old friend of mine posted a chain e-mail on Facebook centering around President Obama and his "socialist" policies. Having seen this very chain e-mail before, researched it, and known it to be false, I copied and pasted the link for him and others to view. Before even reading the fact-check, he responded by saying, "I don't care if the story is true. The points it makes are!" The story was actually false, and the parable it presented was false as well, as this fictional Economics professor lectured about communism when referring to it as socialism. This guy eventually, without admitting he was wrong but insinuating as much, stepped down and left the discussion.
His younger brother then decided to step in and this is when things got really crazy. I've had to keep a stash of Aleve by my side for all the facepalms he's prompted with his comments this past week.
I had commented earlier on the accuracy of a story being relevant, especially when it's being used as a way to manipulate the public by inducing fear and attempting to spread a political agenda. When he said the bit about the story's accuracy being of no relevance, but the points of it being accurate, I countered this by asking what would happen in a court case if a prosecutor came forth with a fictional story, and the defense proved it to be false.
So, in response to this, the younger brother went on to admit that the chain e-mail was likely false, but that Democrats were just as wrong in inducing fear and spreading a political agenda with their blaming an assault weapon for the Sandy Hook shootings, when he claimed that it had been discovered an assault weapon wasn't the main culprit.
I hadn't heard this claim before, so I did some research and saw that the main source for this material was a conspiracy video. So, I challenged him on it and asked for him to show me the source which proved his claim to be true. I then proceeded to share links from the doctor who did the autopsies, the police on the case, the lead investigator, and all of them said the same thing - an assault weapon was the main culprit in the shootings. He then finally admitted to retrieving the information from the conspiracy video and I again shared a fact-check link which proved it to be false.
So, the original post was proven to be false, as was the younger brother's argument. But while the original poster walked away, the younger brother has yet to do so. He then tried to argue that everything is opinion. Nothing is fact. The cops, doctor, and investigator were just giving their expert opinions and while they may be 99% accurate and more reliable than any other opinion, they're still just opinions. So, the Democrats were just as wrong in spreading information that was 99% reliable as Republicans were in spreading information that was 0% reliable, since neither was 100% reliable. Yes, this is where he took the debate. There's no difference between the two, because neither can be seen as factual - merely opinion.
I then followed with the question, "Okay, based on that argument and the numbers we've agreed upon, let's say you've been diagnosed with a serious health condition. The doctor gives you two medical options for treatment. Medication A gives you a 0% chance of full recovery and Medication B gives you a 99% chance of full recovery. Would the doctors be equally wrong in attempting to prescribe you to Medication A as with Medication B, since neither were 100% guaranteed to result in a full recovery? Which route would you travel with your treatment? Would it be a difficult decision since neither was guaranteed? Would you see them as the same, since your life wasn't 100% guaranteed with either?"
He's yet to get back to me on that front, but decided to go back to the beginning of the discussion for the time being, when I asked how effective it would be for a prosecutor to bring forth a story to the judge and jury and for the defense to prove it to be false. He said that attorneys do this kind of thing all the time. The prosecutor will use such stories to build up logic behind the defendant's alleged guilt and the defense will use such stories to prompt a shred of doubt to at least one juror. He then compared that to the original chain e-mail posted. He left out one major detail, however. The original chain e-mail was proved to be false. It's quite a different picture we paint when we leave out that bit of information. It'd be one thing for an attorney to tell a story based on "logic" to persuade the jury to side with their case, with the opposing attorney not muttering a word about the story. It's quite another when that story gets proved false.
So, that's where the debate sits now. I'm half-hoping he responds, as I'm kind of curious where he'll try to take things next. However, the other half of me hopes he doesn't respond at all, because I'm getting a little tired of the conspiracies, lack of research/facts, lack of logic, and desperate attempt to believe that he's possibly 1% right, because if there's a 1% chance he's right, that means he's not wrong, in his own mind anyway. Yes, in his mind, a debunked conspiracy theory video is just as valid as autopsy reports, fact-checking sites, and in-depth investigations. It's quite something for a person to defend a debunked chain e-mail with a debunked conspiracy theory video. That right there is just my opinion.
Comments
Post a Comment