Josh wrote:I talk to people of differing political persuasions than I often. Most of it is just listening, or finding areas of agreement, because my focus is on the relationship with that person, not the topic at hand. I’m never going to talk a Democrat or Republican into being a kingdom Christian by skilful debate and solid facts and figures.
Most of the time, I'm really trying to figure out what is most likely to be true, not to win. But for a lot of things, "what is true" is closely related to facts and figures.
Josh wrote:However, I also put little stock into anything they say in the “facts and figures” department. You seem to want to always make things about the facts and figures, yet can you admit that you have a selective bias on which facts and figures you’ll admit as evidence?
I really do try to look for facts from some source generally considered reliable across the political spectrum, not political talking points from some faction. And I usually do ask others to do the same. And for most of the things we discuss, those sources exist.
Each of us is going to be biased in what we find, that's why it's good to discuss with others who have different biases. But is it really that hard to identify what counts as a reliable source of information?
Josh wrote:When I do use facts and figures which support my position, the source itself is often attacked as not credible enough or too partisan. In essence, Boot, you engage in the very behaviour you decry, and it’s really not fun to disagree with you on anything because it turns visciously political so fast.
Seriously, if I cite a source that you think is not credible or too partisan, please point it out. But when I ask about facts and statistics, I'm doing that because I don't want it to be a partisan political contest. That's precisely why I keep trying to turn attention to facts and policy instead of making everything a referendum on Trump. Of course some things like the Russia investigation are inherently about whether Trump should be investigated, but even then I try to talk about when and how a president of any party should be investigated.
Going forward, if you see examples where I'm violating that, please point it out in this thread. And if people accuse me of that in other threads, I will respond here so we can focus on discussing the actual topic in the other thread.
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?