Just Thinking About Our No-Politics Rule

gruntlabor said:
I always assumed that the pardons were meant to ensure against partisan-motivated convictions (a hallmark of third-world nations).
Click to expand...
Anyone convicted of a crime in this country has the right to an appeal through the court system. I don't see why any president should step in to interfere with that. If anything was partisan-motivated, it would be corrected through that process. It makes sense to me anyway.
 

gruntlabor said:
:) The Flat-Earth theory represents a lifestyle of skepticism re things universally believed, as covid, 9/11, moon landing, and so forth.
Click to expand...
Skeptics and non-believers are different.
Bayesian inference or reasoning comes into play (Or should) to arrive at the most logical conclusion, given the best evidence provided. If it is sufficient and convincing, or simply carries more weight than any opposing view, then it is adopted as the most likely to be true. It shouldn't matter what you desire to be true because of bias, the valid evidence should point the way. If later, more evidence comes to light that counters the current belief, then the belief should be updated.

The truth isn't something you believe, it's something that is, and a person's success in finding it hinges on whether they are willing to sacrifice bias.
 
bobcat said:
... the most logical conclusion ,,, simply carries more weight than any opposing view, then it is adopted as the most likely to be true.
Click to expand...
I think we might carry that too far as, for example, in a civil lawsuit a judge will find for or against when his conclusion only requires 'more likely than not'.
 
bobcat said:
The truth isn't something you believe, it's something that is, and a person's success in finding it hinges on whether they are willing to sacrifice bias.
Click to expand...
After studying the information that you find, how do you know if it is "statistically" more true to reality? Is it like the "preponderance of the evidence" argument?
 
gruntlabor said:
I think we might carry that too far as, for example, in a civil lawsuit a judge will find for or against when his conclusion only requires 'more likely than not'.
Click to expand...
The topic was about views and beliefs.
Trials are another matter. In trials, some convictions require all jurors in agreement for a verdict. In civil trials, it's different, but those are the standards we have set for our legal system. Personal issues are another matter.
 
So yet another thread on political posting we've discussed at length that is not as black and white as some view it. Post from October 27, 2023, "Admin - please reinforce “no politics.”, with snippets from earlier threads.

Admin - please reenforce “no politics.”

I cannot speak for Matrix nor my inputs be considered policy, but rather terse advice. Older posts in threads bearing on this subject:

Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

I've mentioned this before on this board that is supposed to avoid politics, that some apparently did not absorb. Members need to stop DIRECTLY naming political parties and politicians in their threads. There are other ways to reference parties, groups, and politicians without doing so directly. For example, B is the D president. Yeah I know [insert member name], you prefer to demonize directly so everyone can read whatever. Some members are increasingly doing so and some of the same names who do so pop up frequently.

As an example, search in this thread shows "republican" 12 times, democrat 4 times, biden 5 times, trump 5 times, 7 alito, 9 thomas, 6 roberts, 3 breyer, 1 sotomayor, 3 kavanaugh, 1 kagan, 1 gorsuch, 3 barrett.

It's Nice Being on a Non Political Forum

Obviously, some members here strongly would prefer the ability to discuss politics within these forums and some have already posted within this thread that attitude. I'd bet the same people are the ones that post as though they are trying to influence other members as though they are doing so in the service of their personal political party or group for whatever those causes are. Of course, since the Internet arose there have been these trolls that work at such on a list of web forums as though they are performing a service for their cause. I've addressed that previously

https://www.seniorforums.com/thread...ther-members-a-valid-view.71314/#post-2102672

...Several times I've related I am not here to change others as some tend to act as though whatever might bear on a political election or how a conflict or controversy occurs because whatever we post here on this modest web board unlike some social media site like Twitter, will have an infinitesimal effect. While posting does offer value reflecting how a range of people feel about whatever as well as practices discussion skills.

And one can expect they will continue to push forum policy in that direction and in fact use the fact they bait others herein into the same behavior as evidence many are doing so or it is "OK". Well folks don't be drawn into their game. The majority herein obviously don't want to be reading excessive political diarrhea as is found at many other web boards especially during political election cycles. And yes there are ways to discuss political elements without the usual favorite demonizing tactics political trolls tend to use.
 
Paco Dennis said:
After studying the information that you find, how do you know if it is "statistically" more true to reality? Is it like the "preponderance of the evidence" argument?
Click to expand...
Not quite sure what you mean by "statistically more true", but I will answer it this way.
If the evidence seems valid and solid, then it is weighed in the matter according to the amount and relevance. If the evidence is a bit sketchy, or questionable, or is indirectly related, one needs to take that into account. At least that's my view anyway.
 
I Think that is why we have the rule about not promoting your candidate or cause...because each side argues that their evidence is truer than the other... so it remains a stale mate. It is a pointless argument, that can only be contentious.
 
gruntlabor said:
:) You're right, David777, and I apologize. I should have searched previous threads before posting a new one. I promise to do better in future.
Click to expand...
Alright now, young lady, here comes ol' Kate with the wet noodle... you've done it now! 😁 For the record, the search here often leaves a lot to be desired, so I wouldn't worry about it. I've searched for things that I know were posted, and even knew the exact wording and they didn't show up. @gruntlabor
 
bobcat said:
For instance: I would be curious to know how others feel about whether any president should have the authority to pardon someone convicted of a crime. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that is why we have a legal system. Why give any president the power to overturn the work of the courts. Hopefully a discussion like that would be possible, but maybe it's not. I don't know.
Click to expand...
Part of the checks and balances the Founders thought was needed.
 
Paco Dennis said:
I Think that is why we have the rule about not promoting your candidate or cause...because each side argues that their evidence is truer than the other... so it remains a stale mate. It is a pointless argument, that can only be contentious.
Click to expand...

IMO, the point of any discussion is not necessarily to 'sway' another to your own point , or to change their mind. It should be to only present another point of view and air other facts/evidence on the topic. Which should/could inform us all.

I sometimes think that some on (the other side) what ever that may be , are scared silly that someone might actually see another's view and be persuaded to that side .... what ever that may be.
 
rgp said:
IMO, the point of any discussion is not necessarily to 'sway' another to your own point , or to change their mind. It should be to only present another point of view and air other facts/evidence on the topic. Which should/could inform us all.

I sometimes think that some on (the other side) what ever that may be , are scared silly that someone might actually see another's view and be persuaded to that side .... what ever that may be.
Click to expand...
I like this. Like I have said, discussing this war was and is very difficult without ruffling some feathers, but the information has been terrific in that so many viewpoints have been shared. It has definitely widened my perspective and I feel like I have a more comprehensive understanding.
 
gruntlabor said:
:) You're right, David777, and I apologize. I should have searched previous threads before posting a new one. I promise to do better in future.
Click to expand...
Not an issue starting a new thread related to older threads. There are new members continually joining the forum. But there is value in adding in links to past forum threads. It is awkward to always add into the end of old related threads that are multiple pages long since most won't enjoy having to look through all the earlier posts.

Search functions in web forums tend to be limited. Thus value in also trying the more complex Yahoo or Google Search. For example look how well the below works:

"Senior Forums no politics"
 
bobcat said:
While I would agree that any discussion involving parties or personal choices for political office are possible land mines, it would seem that all political topics may not suffer that fate.

For instance: I would be curious to know how others feel about whether any president should have the authority to pardon someone convicted of a crime. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that is why we have a legal system. Why give any president the power to overturn the work of the courts. Hopefully a discussion like that would be possible, but maybe it's not. I don't know.
Click to expand...
That's a good example @bobcat. I've wondered that myself. Perhaps because the president is commander in chief and this would solidify his role as such?
:unsure:
 
chic said:
That's a good example @bobcat. I've wondered that myself. Perhaps because the president is commander in chief and this would solidify his role as such?
:unsure:
Click to expand...
I think it may harken back to days of old when a King or Queen had sovereign authority to forgive or pardon anyone. It seems to be a symbol, if you will, of their supreme authority. Even so, I believe it only applies to Federal crimes, and not state or local crimes. That being said though, unlike any other presidential power, the president can give pardons to whoever they please, for any or no reason, which seems rather bizarre to me.

They tend to be handed out rather willingly at the end of a president's term, and possibly due to urging from supporters. I don't really know or understand why this power is necessary when we have a judicial system that goes to a lot of trouble to convict someone, and even allows for appeals to higher courts, but I guess in the writing of the Constitution, it seemed to make sense, albeit the legal system has evolved a fair degree since then.
 
IKE said:
I have my own views on most everything and arguing over how I feel or don't feel about a certain subject on a keyboard is not going to convince me to change my views nor am I going to convince you to change yours.
Click to expand...
Yeah, as in healthful living.......there's a simple logic
the less you put into yer mouth, the better
Same with politics
The less that comes outa yer mouth, the better
 
I am sure there are forums that are open and welcome Political Discussions.
Two I know of are and they have already been mentioned here on SF are:


Over50sChat.com

SeniorsOnlyClub.com

Of course there are others also..

As for myself, I am Very Glad that SF is not allowing of Politics.
Great choice by Matrix..
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top