Is the US government out of control?

[ShadowBoxing]

but SHE saw it. Did you see 1964?

I can read about it, I can watch video of it...your just coping out to knowing things. Just because I cannot live first hand to not invalidate any knowledge I have of such an event....do you read books at all, or do you just pull things out of your butt.

 

[stryfe]

Indeed they did. But not all of us have the benefit of being able to live through historic events and comment on them years later. Thats why people write books. Reading something doesn't invalidate ones understanding of the event,even though one wasnt present.

Humans are biased by nature. To fully trust what someone writes in a book is idiotic at best. If i read someones written in 1950 that said all ethinic groups other then whites were devils should I take this as just as much fact as anyother book? Hell im sure they could even provide graphs for such a stupid statement, does that make it right?

 

[stryfe]

Ummmmmm....no, people die all the time in the emergency room.

Nice. way to mix words. your statement was they cant send you away without treatment. My reply was because if they do and you die there liable.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Humans are biased by nature. To fully trust what someone writes in a book is idiotic at best. If i read someones written in 1950 book that said all ethinic groups other then whites were devils should I take this as just as much fact as anyother book? Hell im sure they could even provide graphs for such a stupid statement, does that make it right?

But the statements you make here are idiotic at best, like trying to tell me the south was the only place where racism is present. Furthermore not all books are biased, and those that are exist from a multitude of viewpoints, meaning you can and do get a full picture provided you read enough of them....God Stephen Colbert would have a field day with you.

 

[Abaddon]

Humans are biased by nature. To fully trust what someone writes in a book is idiotic at best. If i read someones written in 1950 book that said all ethinic groups other then whites were devils should I take this as just as much fact as anyother book? Hell im sure they could even provide graphs for such a stupid statement, does that make it right?

So you don't see the point in documenting history because the source is always biased?Come on. What makes a person who lived through an events understanding of it any more valid than someone who merely researched the facts,if all humans are biased? In that case the absolute truth doesnt exist,only the perception of the truth by the people witnessing researching it.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Nice. way to mix words. your statement was they cant send you away without treatment. My reply was because if they do and you die there liable.

Well then you missed my point, they are NOT liable because people die all the time in the ER and they are not liable for them. The have to provide treatment because of government regulations...just like a police officer has to respond to 911 calls.

So yes the Government makes them...however liable is a term referred to when contracts are involved.

 

[stryfe]

So you don't see the point in documenting history because the source is always biased?Come on. What makes a person who lived through an events understanding of it any more valid than someone who merely researched the facts,if all humans are biased? In that case the absolute truth doesnt exist,only the perception of the truth by the people witnessing researching it.

correct. Over time facts change because views chage. History gets muddled because of the view change and what once might have been right is wrog and vice versa. So unless you can see it yourself, create your own opinion on firsthand knowledge your view is dependent on someone elses word that also may or may not have also been skewed by another. Regardless of intention right or wrong if you have to rely on anothers take on how something happened you can NEVER truly know what really happened simply the other person could be writing based on a biased view, quite like my previous example.

 

[Abaddon]

correct. Over time facts change because views chage. History gets muddled because of the view change and what once might have been right is wrog and vice versa. So unless you can see it yourself, create your own opinion on firsthand knowledge your view is dependent on someone elses word that also may or may not have also been skewed by another. Regardless of intention right or wrong if you have to rely on anothers take on how something happened you can NEVER truly know what really happened simply the other person could be writing based on a biased view, quite like my previous example.

Then your point is moot.

 

[stryfe]

But the statements you make here are idiotic at best, like trying to tell me the south was the only place where racism is present. Furthermore not all books are biased, and those that are exist from a multitude of viewpoints, meaning you can and do get a full picture provided you read enough of them....God Stephen Colbert would have a field day with you.

Explain to me how you know this as fact. Prove it to me and I will never post again in any forum ever. If this statement is true then I dont see why there are any religeuos wars out there because gee......there all correct cause it documented in there F-ing books.

 

[stryfe]

Then your point is moot.

Not sure how but

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Explain to me how you know this as fact. Prove it to me and I will never post again in any forum ever. If this statement is true then I dont see why there are any religeuos wars out there because gee......there all correct cause it documented in there F-ing books.

For example if a book says "America won WWII" or "Public Policy is the study of making and evaluating policy" or "Birds migrate in flocks" they are what we call textbooks, which make very stingent attempts to be very even handed, furthermore they are all peer reviewed by randomly selected academia. For example most of my government books don't make judgements whether a policy was good or bad, they just tell you who passed it and what it was...so therefore not really a bias...especially considering in my Court Case book I am reading the actual court briefs.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Then your point is moot.

Precisely...he is just trying to invalidate people who had facts against the outlandish statements he made...

 

[Admiral_N8]

For example if a book says "America won WWII" or "Public Policy is the study of making and evaluating policy" or "Birds migrate in flocks" they are what we call textbooks, which make very stingent attempts to be very even handed, furthermore they are all peer reviewed by randomly selected academia. For example most of my government books don't make judgements whether a policy was good or bad, they just tell you who passed it and what it was...so therefore not really a bias...especially considering in my Court Case book I am reading the actual court briefs.

Thats what I hate about those books, I want to read both arguments from each side, not just dry facts....thats why debate is so much more interesting.

 

[stryfe]

For example if a book says "America won WWII" or "Public Policy is the study of making and evaluating policy" or "Birds migrate in flocks" they are what we call textbooks, which make very stingent attempts to be very even handed, furthermore they are all peer reviewed by randomly selected academia. For example most of my government books don't make judgements whether a policy was good or bad, they just tell you who passed it and what it was...so therefore not really a bias...especially considering in my Court Case book I am reading the actual court briefs.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/brontosaurus.html

"text book" history.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/brontosaurus.html

"text book" history.

But thats second hand information

 

[Abaddon]

Not sure how but

I don't have to live in a time to be able to read the slave naratives and neo slave naratives...or the works of Richard Wright, or Dubois.

Not firsthand knowledge.

Over time facts change because views cha[n]ge. History gets muddled because of the view change and what once might have been right is wrog and vice versa. So unless you can see it yourself, create your own opinion on firsthand knowledge your view is dependent on someone elses word that also may or may not have also been skewed by another. Regardless of intention right or wrong if you have to rely on anothers take on how something happened you can NEVER truly know what really happened simply the other person could be writing based on a biased view, quite like my previous example.

Humans are biased by nature.

See it now?

 

[stryfe]

But thats second hand information

Your right but at least I can admit the source could be biased. Is that all the argument you could come up with when faced with an example of how books can be wrong?

 

[stryfe]

See it now?

I am witnessing the governments corruption making it forsthand knowledge.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I am witnessing the governments corruption making it forsthand knowledge.

How so...you aren't in the white house or government so its second hand knowledge.

 

[Abaddon]

I am witnessing the governments corruption making it forsthand knowledge.

Maybe,but youre biased.

 

[stryfe]

I see it on my paycheck. I see it in the war i fought in. I see it when I go to the hospital, when I go to buy gas.

 

[Admiral_N8]

How so...you aren't in the white house or government so its second hand knowledge.

Experiencing the results makes it first hand knowledge.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I see it on my paycheck. I see it in the war i fought in. I see it when I go to the hospital, when I go to buy gas.

But humans are inheritently biased....so you're seeing the picture you wanna see.

 

[stryfe]

Maybe,but youre biased.

Im not asking you to believe me the point of the thread was to see if you had the same opinion.

 

[Abaddon]

Im not asking you to believe me the point of the thread was to see if you had the same opinion.

I don't have enough information to say either way.