I can't believe I share the planet with ... this. *quality life be damned!

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by PlayhousePals.

If anyone ever says "no" to the question "is there any evidence that could change your mind on this", they should not only be disqualified from running for political office, they should be disqualified from voting, teaching, procreating and possibly also breathing.

I can't tell you how much I agree with this statement....no matter what the topic.

Of course, that would mean all devout religious people (and also many non religious people) would be removed from the population....which I can totally get behind. I would also be OK with them just being put in 'religious freedom' camps after sterilization...but would prefer they no longer share the atmosphere as they are likely to damage it for the rest of us even if they're separated.
The only thing I'm truly 100% certain about is that I can't be 100% certain about anything. I mean, come on, there's at least a 0.000001% chance I live in the Matrix.

Probably higher than that.

Hell, I'm not entirely convinced you're all not evil AIs designed to ruin my productivity.

@newtboy
@ChaosEngine

It's incredibly chilling to me that your comments got any upvotes at all. Yeah, I get it's a joke. But in the current political climate where people (i.e. Trump and his frighteningly large number of supporters) are actually talking about walling off an entire nation to keep out "undesirables" and killing the relatives of terrorists in some misguided attempt at revenge, it's a joke in poor taste.

Furthermore the anger behind the joke (and there is clearly anger since you guys are joking about sterilizing and killing people) is misguided as well--you put a camera in front of any political supporter and try to goad them into saying something that is clearly in direct opposition to what their party's line is and you're going to get a bullshit answer, regardless of whether you're interviewing a Democratic or Republican.

On that note, it would be interesting to see this same bit at the DNC with the reporter asking questions about gun control and the NRA--I'm sure you'd get some great clips of people being uninformed and stubbornly resistant to facts as well. And make no mistake-- what we're seeing here are the "best of" clips that some editor picked out to show Republicans in the worst possible light. I would really love to see the raw footage and see how the people they chose not to show on TV reacted during the interviews.

Well, first off, the part about sterilising and killing was pretty obviously tongue in cheek, although I take your point that some Trump supporters might make the same point seriously.

That said, I have an expectation that the people on this site are smart enough to read what I said as comic hyperbole. As for it being in poor taste, that's up to the listener. I certainly found it in much better taste than Jim Jeffries bit on Bill Cosby, but as you quoted Reginald D Hunter "take it from the rest of us who did laugh--it was fuckin' funny."

All comedy aside, I was being 100% serious when I said that if you really believe in something so much that no evidence will change your mind, then you shouldn't be voting let alone running for office.

As for getting the same response at the DNC.... you're almost certainly right. It would be about different issues (probably vaccines, GMOs and the like), but they would be just as wrong as the Republicans.

That anger is real and not at all misguided. Woolly thinking has held the human race back for millennia and caused untold suffering and horror: racism/slavery, sexism, homophobia, the "war on drugs", climate change, alternative medicine.... do I need to go on?

I'm not saying you can't have a firmly held belief, and I'm not even saying that everything you believe must be fully supported by evidence, but everyone (myself included) should be willing to at least question their own dogma.

"Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" should be the simplest question to answer for anyone.

@ChaosEngine

Comparing your joke to Jim Jeffries joke is a bit unfair, I think. @Chairman_woo gave an excellent analysis of why Jeffries's joke was masterfully crafted, with multiple levels of irony that all orchestrate beatifully together to subvert the listeners' expectations--even if you disagree with the subject matter of the joke.

Your joke, on the other hand, has none of that. It belongs in the same category as Dave Tosh's joke to the female heckler in the audience:

“Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?”

Tosh said that in anger and frustration. I see yours and newtboy's comments coming from the same place. Both are jokes filled with malice and lacking cleverness, and therefore I find them to be wholly unfunny and in fact disturbing. Of course, YMMV.

Now, as far as the rest of your post goes, I think you might have missed the point of my previous post: your anger is misguided because the gentleman who made the comment that outraged you said what he said because he was put under pressure to make a statement that opposes his own party's rhetoric at his party's national conventionduring a Presidential election year!

It's pretty easy to see how someone, knowing they were likely going to be on TV and seen by millions, might make an overzealous statement to show support for their party that in hindsight turns out to be asinine. In fact I'm sure that's what the show's producers were banking on when they originally came up with the idea for the segment. Whether this particular person--or really any person--will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs is unknown no matter what they may say in public. And their statement is especially suspect when being asked to give an unrehearsed response to a question on TV.

You say your are angry at "woolly thinking" but I think what you really mean is you are angry at ignorance. Personally, I agree with you that feigned ignorance is something to be angry at--politicians who know the facts but continue to say despicable things (i.e. Trump) that they know their people want to hear in order to further their own careers are most certainly deserving of our anger and possibly some form of appropriate punishment, such as being removed from office, if it can proven that they were being dishonest with the public.

But I can't be angry at actual ignorance--people don't know what they don't know. Or even worse, people who think they know when in fact they only have some (but not all) of the facts. Not everyone is lucky enough to grow up in an environment that values education, critical thinking, and seeking out multiple opinions. And even growing up in such an environment is no guarantee that a person is going take advantage of the priviledges presented and become a reasonable and reasoned adult. But my own personal belief is that all of us who are healthy individuals have the capacity to learn, grow, and change our minds given the proper environment and time, regardless of the current state of our knowledge or beliefs. All those things you mentioned--slavery, homophobia, the drug war, etc.--it's pretty clear we are in fact learning and moving on. The transition may be painful but it is happening.

One thing I find interesting about your thinking on this matter is how it exactly mirrors that of the Republicans presented in the video. You see "wholly thinkers" or ignorant people or whatever you'd like to call them exactly as these Republicans see Black Lives Matter activists--as some nefarious and dangerous group of "others" that should be distrusted. I prefer to see them as human beings who are, admittedly, flawed... as am I in a great many ways. I guess it just comes down to having a more optomistic view of humanity.

EDIT: "Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" is not a simple question at all. For example, I don't believe torture is an acceptable method of intelligence gathering. You could show me study after study "proving" its effectiveness and I still would never approve of it. On the other hand, if you showed me a study that found a competing laundry detergent got stains out better than the one I was using, I'd probably switch detergents the next time I went shopping.

It's not fully a joke.
I honestly think people not willing to examine their beliefs in the face of new contradictory evidence need to be removed from those actually willing to learn in order for us to evolve as a species/civilization...but that evolution is probably over now. I don't actually advocate killing, sterilizing, or even removing them, I do advocate teaching them, by force if necessary, or removing some privileges. Lucky for everyone (including me) I'm not in charge.
I do wish there was a way to identify them and bar them from teaching, voting, or governing, or any other activity where their solidified beliefs might tend to negatively impact others, but they are not easily identified.
I think it's a mental disorder to believe something so strongly that you can't even try to consider new information or even consider that your belief is possibly wrong. I would like to see that disorder eradicated in my lifetime. I'm willing to change my opinion if presented with incontrovertible evidence that I'm wrong, though. ;-)
I'm not angry with ignorance, ignorance is forgivable and curable...I'm angry with ignorance masquerading as certitude, which is what people who say truthfully that nothing could ever change their mind (about any topic) are displaying.

As for your above example of torture, what if you were shown incontrovertible proof that it's not only effective, but is (somehow, this is hypothetical) MORAL, and is suddenly found to be acceptable to 99.999% of society due to this new evidence? Would you at least CONSIDER that your position might be wrong? If so, you can stay in society and you don't have to be fixed. ;-)

@SDGundamX, first up, it was a throwaway line, you're reading way too much into it.

I'm not going to go over Jim Jeffries joke (it's been discussed to death already), except to say that, yeah, I got what he was trying to do and no, it still wasn't that funny or clever.

Besides, I wasn't trying to compare the two. Mine was a throwaway line, his was an extended sketch by a touring professional comedian. My point was simply that taste is in the eye of the beholder.

And would you please do me the courtesy of not telling me what I'm thinking. I'm not angry about ignorance, I'm angry about woolly thinking (specifically, lack of critical thinking).

If you're ignorant, then you just need to be taught. I'm not angry at ignorant people, I'm sorry for them and I want to help them.

My problem is with people (like the guy in the video) who have been presented with evidence, but ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview.

200 years ago, if you believed that disease was a result of demonic possession, that's unfortunate. If you believe that today, you're deliberately ignoring knowledge.

As far as viewing people who reject evidence as a dangerous "other", I'm ok with that. As I've said before, I don't believe in "tolerance" as a virtue. If someone isn't bothering me, or someone is doing something I don't like, but it doesn't harm anyone, then I'm fine with them; I have no need to "tolerate" them.

But if people are doing something that causes harm (racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc), I don't tolerate that at all, and will speak out against it.


As for your torture example, it is flawed. You're saying that you wouldn't reconsider the ethics of torture, even if evidence of its efficacy was available. Do you see the problem?

You proposition was that torture is unethical, and your hypothetical evidence states that it is effective. The two are orthogonal properties. It is possible to be both effective and unethical.

Besides, I didn't say you had to change your position, I said you had to reconsider. If someone presented you with a philosophical argument arguing for the ethics of torture, are you saying you wouldn't even hear it out?

I hold positions like that myself. Despite everything, I believe that one day, people will overcome their petty differences and venture out into the stars. That doesn't mean I don't question it..

@ChaosEngine

I think we're getting a bit far off from the original topic, so I'll try to stay focused on my original point: you're still saying this guy in the video was presented with evidence and refused to change his mind.

He wasn't.

He was asked a rhetorical question to which he spontaneously replied in the way that he felt would be most in line with the thinking of his political party since he knew he was going to be on TV. His throwaway answer triggered your angry throwaway comment and here we are, with you apparently unable to grasp the irony of how your demonizing a group of "wooly thinking" bogeymen (who according to you are responsible for slavery, homophobia, and the drug war among other things) is completely mirroring the rhetoric of all the people in the video who are demonizing the BLM movement and the rhetoric of Trump in general regarding Mexicans, Muslims, etc.

You can see how well that approach is working for the Republicans, so it's baffling to me why you'd take that approach in dealing with something that is a real problem--convincing people to change their minds about beliefs that are deeply held but also based on what others would say is faulty reasoning (but seems perfectly reasonable to the person holding the belief). I think you'll find, along with the Republicans, that this approach of demonizing the "other" (who exists only in your mind--when was the last time you met someone who actually believed they were possessed by demons when they caught a cold?) does nothing to solve problems but in fact exacerbates them instead.

And that concludes all I have to say on the subject. I'll read whatever response you post but won't be replying in this thread again.

As a sidenote which has nothing to do with the debate here...

"Do you exist?

...

Is there any evidence that could change your thinking on this?"

@SDGundamX, that's my whole point. He refused to even consider the possibility that he could be wrong. It wasn't like he was presented with evidence and he felt the evidence was poor or insufficient.

@Babymech, good question! Given it's a fairly esoteric question, I'd say the answer would come down to a definition of "existence". Maybe if you somehow presented incontrovertible proof that we were living in a simulation? or is that still "cogito ergo sum"?

I will admit my first question "is there any evidence that could change your thinking on this?" is not that good, as you might not be aware of what kind of evidence COULD exist. I believe the second question "would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" is much better.

Hey, look at that! You presented me with evidence and I changed my position! The system works

I'm sorry for the derail, I just love the absolute certainty of that question - I hope the sincerely religious feel the same way about god's existence.

Additionally, I am starting to worry that the problem is not that people refuse to consider that they might be wrong... it's that they don't care if they're wrong or not. It's literally an irrelevant thing to worry about. If the rest of us want to play that game where we match actual facts to actual words, that's fine - the truth of what they say is in the message, not whether or not the facts happen to match up. Not only are they immune to facts, but they really feel that facts are a second-rate measurement of truth.

I saw a fascinating video* on this once - maybe here - that discussed the ancient (Biblical) understanding of truth, vs the modern understanding of truth. If you have a great story with a strong lesson, the modern measure of truth is whether or not the events described in the story match any actual events, and the Biblical measure of the truth of the story is whether it teaches a strong lesson or not. Maybe it's my ivory tower elitism but that seems to be exactly what goes on in the GOP now - if a 'war on cops,' for example, is a powerful story, it's more true than if the statistics show that officers are safer now.

*It was probably this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL6E4eMX-4k (Reza Aslan on the Young Turks)

lol *promote

Funny. Impossible to take this all that seriously.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, July 25th, 2016 11:17pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.