Phoenix XXVII: Can we all get along?
View Single Post
03-12-2011, 09:01 AM
bettman's a Weasel
Join Date: May 2009
Originally Posted by
Since you went to the effort of posting, I did want to provide the courtesy of a reply.
My answer is that the world of partisan politics is chock full of people making a handsome living doing nothing but pursuing partisan political matters - what I referred to as not "a real job" (a description I stand by). Ms. Olsen is one of thousands of fish swimming in that particular sea, moving between the Cato Institute to Goldwater to the Heritage Foundation to National Review to the Weekly Standard and back again. The left has similar groups, albeit not as well funded. I have no idea if Ms. Olsen is making a "decent" (financially speaking) living, whatever that means. I don't really care. What I do care about - a little bit - is her credibility, since she is now the public voice of GWI. That role comes with scrutiny. I applied some. Accept or reject it as you wish. The sun will rise tomorrow.
How many times do you want to beat this dead horse?
Your positions have always confused "opinion" with "bias". They are not the same thing. Holding an opinion is not to have a bias. I assume that intellectually you would agree with me, yet you consistently mischaracterize my every opinion as a mere "bias". The difference between the two terms is that a
"bias" is a predetermined point of view generally based on motives or desires that have nothing to do with the substance of the matter
, like a racial bias. An opinion, though, is something that one earns through investigation and consideration. I dislike lobster, but that is not because I am "biased" against lobster; I have tried it several times, and discovered that I did not enjoy the taste or texture. I am not
against lobster. I have an
Now, you may not enjoy my posts. That is an
to which you are entitled. I would not suggest that you are biased against my posts, because I know you've read a lot of them and have earned your opinion that you disagree philosophically and in terms of tone. That's okay. I am
Disagree as you may, but I doubt that you would say that I have not done a lot of research on the matters that get discussed around here, or that I do not follow these things in the media like a hawk, or I have no knowledge base, or that my views are not half-assed.
See, Ghost, those are all the things that I, or you, use to develop an
. Not a bias, an opinion. I have done the research and spent way more time than is justified. I believe that, for myself (not anyone else), in order to have a viable opinion on something, I need to earn that opinion by doing the work. Researching, reading, listening (including, you might be surprised, to your posts), etc. With that, I have formed opinions. Those opinions, contrary to your views, evolve, but others get reinforced as I continue to learn more. Unfortunately for us, the ones you seem to care about (a team in WPG) have not changed at their core. That is not because I am biased against WPG. I have never been there. I have friends who come from there. WPG is not like lobster to me.
There are some biases around here, mostly revolving around a desire to have a team in their home market. Another common bias revolves around a preference for "real hockey fans" to get preferential treatment over others. Those are biases. THere are others who, for the first one at least, hold an opinion regarding the return of a team to their city; they have clearly done some research and some hard thinking on the subject. I say bravo to them, even if their opinion does not agree with mine.
I will, however, cop to one bias. I have a bias against the expression of unearned certainty. IMO, if you are going to be certain - REALLY certain - about something, do the work to earn your certainty. I guess I am biased against bias. IF someone is going to put forth an argument to me that begins with "everyone knows ...", I have no time for that. EVeryone is entitled to their biases in the same way as everyone is entitled to their opinions (there does not seem to be any HF rule against them, other than the racist ones, etc. of course), but that doesn't mean that they have to be listened to by me.
You are welcome to your views. I have had it with discussing myself with you or others. Engage me on my views, or don't waste your time.
Just asking a question here, not accusing anyone of anything. If someone was, say, paid by the NHL to support the NHL's position on these boards, would that qualify as a bias, in your opinion?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by HamiltonFan