Has Anyone Here on PF Ever Changed Their Mind?

Unfortunately I lost my best link to a great single source. I will see if I can find the site again. It wasn't to climatologist but a mathematician/statistician who traced data back to its source, linked all the raw data sets he could get his hands on, and then analyzed both what was being reported and the raw data himself. He took no position on AGW, but showed the flaws in what was being reported by either side compared to what the data actually showed and critiqued how reliable the data was compared to other data. He is basically a numbers junkie.

 

I know i have. I used to think that all people were basically reasonable, & could think logically & arrive at a rational conclusion. Years on forums has convinced me that, especially among progressive leftists, no amount of facts, reason, or empiricism will change their minds or convince them of anything. Truth, & the pursuit of it are meaningless platitudes. The only thing that matters is their agenda, & they will distort, & spin truth or reality to promote their beliefs.

 

THIS POST is the closest I've ever seen to someone at PF actually taking a compelling argument that refutes their belief, conceding that they were wrong, and changing their view. People who honestly seek the truth will not hesitate to do this. Most people here are not seeking truth, unfortunately.

 

If you have formed an opinion based on faulty information, and you are SHOWN that information was faulty, and you AGREE that it was faulty and you were misled, then you should be willing... no... EAGER to modify your opinion. Right?

 

Good point. I didn't think about the relationships and team mentality involved here. No one wants to let their friends down.

 

I think that people who participate here regularly, read or consider more opposing points than those who simply consume the 'news' (despite their sources).

People CAN indeed review similar info/facts, yet hold different opinions. I think it would be rare that someone does a complete 180 degree turn in their views, but I'm fairly certain that many people's mindsets are at least challenged from time to time.

 

Ha!

Actually, I have also learned something today. I have been a strong supporter of the 2A for a long time, and I never knew that little piece about the meaning of "well-regulated." Thanks for the ammo dump!

 

I think you are right, mindsets are challenged, but people will rarely admit it in posts. It is much easier to gloss over it and pretend that the challenge never occurred.

To me, this seems to be a major reason why people stop posting in threads. When they are on the verge of losing the argument, and they know it, they rather retreat than admit defeat.

Personally, I have learned a lot on this forum about the conservative and libertarian mindset. Not having grown up in the US, it is still hard for me sometimes to grasp that for some, individual liberty trumps everything else. However, I have a much better understanding of the matter now than when I first started living in the US.

 

I think I can say yes.

I used to be somewhere between independent and a moderate republican until this present crowd of repubs took over.

I once had a live-and-let-live attitude towards religion until the religious right turned advocacy into imposition.

Way back in the days when most gun owners were responsible adults, I was fairly calm on the subject. Now, with the lunatic gun-fondlers at work, I am much more in favor of gun control. Unless one is plotting treason, I fail to see the need for military-style weapons.

Since my retirement, I have had the time to do a lot of research on the issues of the day, ranging from the above through health insurance reform, through economics, including political theory and law, and there is no issue of which I am aware on which the current repub party stands which is not full of lies, distortions, character assassination, scum tactics, and generic bull ****.

I could go on, but, frankly, it would be a waste of my time.

 

The point that I am making is that they think they simply have a different opinion/preference. It is often the case that there is some unstated premise that leads to a different conclusion. The truth of many propositions is not hard to find because the logic is complicated but because the constituent facts that are required to get there are hard to come by; however, the primary problem is in finding that premise which differs among individuals. Take the gun control debate, for instance. People go back and forth all day long thinking that there is some piece of evidence that is going to convince them to switch sides. The reality is that there are irreconcilable premises that are not being agreed upon--there can be no "fact' or argument that changes the position. If we could magically remove all weapons from society and drastically reduce gun deaths, there are people who would still rather have their guns because they value their freedom that much--it is a social cost they are willing to pay (I am one of those people). I'll admit that if the numbers quintupled I'd waver a bit on gun control (I'd never support a ban or anything that could lead to one), but that threshold is much higher than it is for most people.

The second premise, and even less flexible, is the belief that people should have the right, in special circumstances, to oppose their government with deadly force. The first premise is often subconsciously justified by the second, at least for the more squeamish types who aren't willing to admit that they are willing to have a more dangerous society for the sake of freedom. This premise may originally be based on the constitution and, therefore, seemingly contingent, but I can assure you that it has evolved into a belief that supersedes even the constitution. If you proved tomorrow that the founders actually didn't support the right of individuals to bear arms, it would have no effect on this group (I include myself within this category). Many within the general public have a more contingent view of gun rights, and they can be swayed based on circumstances, but trying to negotiate with strong supporters of the 2A is a complete waste of time. This doesn't mean that we won't discuss the details of the social costs, benefits, etc., but that we ultimately cannot be persuaded to give up our weapons, no matter what.

By the way, fellow gun nuts, I am NOT suggesting that liberals are making valid proposals that would reduce gun violence. In fact, this is how I know they are disingenuous and lying about their ultimate intentions. The common folk within the liberal camp don't want a gun ban, but their leaders absolutely do.

 

"The common folk within the liberal camp don't want a gun ban, but their leaders absolutely do."

And here I was hoping for an ORIGINAL lie instead of one of the same, tired, old ones.

 

Not the direction I would prefer (I can't bring myself to put democrats in power), but at least you were willing to change your mind, and that is really admirable. Personally, I can't stand the Republican party either and consider myself unaffiliated. The one thing they have going for them, for me at least, is that they don't want to ban and confiscate guns. I know a lot of democrats think we are crazy about this, but there is ample evidence to suggest that they would really like to see an eventual ban. For that reason, we can't take any of their gun control policies seriously.

 

Haha, sorry to disappoint.

Many of them do not support the interpretation that individuals have the right to bear arms--they tolerate it out of expediency. Google "guns should be banned," and you will find plenty of intellectuals in that camp who are advocating a ban and confiscation, in time. Just as you might hang around conservatives, read what their intellectuals have to say on a given topic, and get a general sense of their ideas, so to can you do the same with liberals. I can assure you that we are disagreeing because their is an information gap with one of us. Obviously, I think i'm right!

 

You say to try not to present mild alterations of position. But often the differences in a hard debate are actually mild. And sometimes it is simply a matter of judging versus the reservation of judgment. For instance, not long ago I assumed that Hillary Clinton was a reckless SoS who wiped her feet on security measures, exalted herself above the law and put our national security at risk with her personal email server. Now I'm not so sure that she is any different than any other official. So I've gone from "what's her punishment" to "what's the charge or crime".

 

Since participating here, I've become MUCH more biased against Right-wing extremism.

 

In any case, whether written or not... people will disagree.

We have to handle the same as we see fit, in real time.

In a civilized society, there will always be some form of 'compromise'.

 

I can't say I've changed my mind on anything in particular, but I do try to research whatever argument I disagree with to see if there is a common ground. This site has helped me better understand where people of differing opinions are coming from.

 

I once only disliked Hillary a little, but after reading a few posts of the liberals here drooling over cankle, I now truly hate that (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and everything she stands for.

How is that for a change of opinion?

 

I learn new things all the time - especially here. A good discussion encourages me to hit the books.

 

That's true. It's often the case of a straw that breaks the camel's back.

True, but the goal, ideally, is to find the hidden premises and challenge them directly. At least, that is what I try to do.

 

Humans... hardly an exact science.

 

"In a civilized society, there will always be some form of 'compromise'."

And, if one side not only refuses to compromise but obstructs and subverts and is so willing to destroy our government in the name of their ideology that they are actually proud
of that subversion? Even when Democrats advocate (and pass) legislation which mirrors (former) repub recommendations, the repubs move, in this case, not heaven but hell on earth (I refer to Romneycare/Obamacare/health insurance reform and, as another example, the former repub position on illegal aliens) to destroy and demonize it. The faction currently in charge of that party has become a toxic combination of short-sighted stupidity, willful ignorance, and applied evil.

 

I changed my mind. I used to give liberals benefit of the doubt, now I know they are idiots...

 

Congratulations on the logic and content of the above. It is, however, less than surprising.

 

Simplicity is a logic all its own. Liberal thought is like death by auto-erotic asphyxiation, taking something so simple and complicating until it can kill you...