Originally Posted by
FBinNY
As I said, I'm not invested either way. I originally posted about assumed converse in response to Daihard's reference to his wife.
So, sorry, I simply won't get drawn into an argument about this.
That said, on this issue and many others, I'm more interested in encouraging people to broaden their outlook and think for themselves, and possibly introducing new or different ways of looking at things.
I mentioned confirmation bias earlier, and it's real and has infected just about everything, not only here, but throughout the political spectrum.
So, I feel a need to sometimes play devil's advocate, and combat some of the preaching to the choir here on BF. After all, this is a forum, not a church.
You have mastered a peculiar form of argument that runs something like this:
1. Statement that you are not arguing the point.
2. Argument about the point, usually coupled with statement about why the person who was discussing the point is from some other planet and/or illogical
3. Statement that you're not actually arguing, but "just sayin'" and telling the other person not to react.
I'm so-so at best on sharrows, I suspect they're just slightly better than nothing, and can be implemented well in some places and horribly in others, but I'll be damned if I can spot anyone here being a pro-sharrow "choir" I do think that people who make strong factual claims to support their preferences should expect people to challenge them to prove those claims, whether those claims are pro or con sharrows..
BTW, I think it's possible that people will view something as proof of confirmation bias just because they expect to find confirmation bias. How's that for meta?
.