DrewDad wrote:Foxfyre wrote: DrewDad wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Well any truly objective analysis of political substance is subjective don't you think?
I'd ask how you think you could possibly expect to be taken seriously after a comment like that, but I suspect you can rationalize reasons quite easily.
I have no doubt that
you can claim to be objective, while retaining the ability to denounce anyone with whom you disagree.
Sorry, but I do believe many if not most of our political impressions about a candidate are more subjective than objective, so sue me. Also, I don't denounce anyone with whom I disagree. I do presume to disagree when I do for which I have at times been severly pummeled if not downright demonized by others.
Would you say that your opinion of me as
'retaining an ability to denounce anyone with whom (I) disagree' is objective or subjective? If objective, please provide your evidence.
Disagreeing is not denouncing. Some people don't quite get the gist of that, I suppose:
Fox, you seem to believe that you can substitute a reasonable tone for reason.
I'm not at all appalled at the idea that politics is subjective.
I'm appalled at how you can say, "And a truly objective analysis of what each candidate is saying doesn't reveal any more substance coming from the Obama camp." And then turn around and invalidate
your own post by asking, "Well any truly objective analysis of political substance is subjective don't you think?"
And to top it all of, you get pissy with me.
I'll agree with one thing you've said:
Foxfyre wrote:Some people don't quite get the gist of that, I suppose
I'm outta here for a while.
Please pardon my reasonable tone.
I can say it because I believe it. I believe those providing an analysis will claim to be doing so objectively--the Pew poll referenced within the discussion was certainly an objective analysis. Read all those urban legend sites for Truth vs Fiction re the political ads and/or claims and you see it all laid out objectively. But the conclusions/impressions drawn from that seem to be mostly subjective since none of us can get inside the head of somebody else.
Perhaps my perspective about that is completely wacko--if it is, I can accept that. I don't understand, however, why people, presumably thinking themselves to be so much more reasonable or objective or knowledgable and/or morally superior than I am, can get so angry with me purely because I express what I think.
But oh well. That particular syndrome also seems to plague others and also candidates for public office too. It's the other guy's sins that becomes the issues instead of the issue or subject being discussed.
Most people face to face over coffee will generally ask another person to clarify a comment that doesn't quite compute. Here people make their quite subjective judgment about the same statement and pounce, sometimes quite unpleasantly. If we could keep it all as objective as possible, the discussions might be more productive. Or not. Who knows?
And usually the judgments about politicians are no more charitable and there seems to usually be no more willingness to try to understand what somebody is saying or accept what somebody is saying if they aren't your candidate of choice.
