Open Letter to Spain..

[ylexot (Premo)]

Originally posted by SuperGrover
[b]okay, folks here's a much better article about spain, without the arrogance from the "open letter to spain" author.

this actually swayed my opinion as to why the terrorists won and the author did it without making us look bad.

Facts and logical thought sway my opinions. I guess feelings sway yours. I could care less if someone is "arrogant" about their opinion. If they present a logical argument, I will listen.

[ylexot (Premo)]

Originally posted by Tonio
I think SuperGrover was saying that the arrogance of the other article didn't help the author's case.

True. People don't like to be told point blank that they are idiots.

[Tonio]

Originally posted by ylexot
Facts and logical thought sway my opinions. I guess feelings sway yours. I could care less if someone is "arrogant" about their opinion. If they present a logical argument, I will listen.

I don't believe that humans can ever keep all their feelings out of their logical arguments. We're not Vulcans. Some people just do a better job than others of sticking to the facts. Others have an emotional agenda that clearly comes through and is distracting for people trying to follow their logical arguments. I'm just as guilty of anyone of letting my emotions overwhelm my logic at times.

[Warron]

>>Facts and logical thought sway my opinions. <<

It's hardly fact that the terrorist bombing caused a turn in the spanish election. If anything, this opinion is more an emotional response to not getting a desired result. Short of every voter coming out and saying they voted for the socialist party as a result of the bombing, any opinions you may read are only speculation.

A falure of the media and political analysts to accurately predict the outcome of an election is nothing new. Right here in the old USA, there was a big scandal about 4 years ago over an election being called before all the votes were cast. I could easily speculate that all the Spanish socialist voters just happen to be late comers to the polls. Especially considering the spanish peoples disagreement with the popular parties' handling of the Iraq war from the beginning.

And then we come to the old correlation versus causation statistical argument. Just because two events happen at the same time, does not mean that one causes the other. You need far more information then a bombing occuring just before an election to prove the bombing influenced the election. No statistical connection can be proven by correlation alone.

In the end, I agree that it is possible that the bombing influenced the election in spain, but there is far from enough evidence to say how probable it is. So if you want to speculate on such a connection, go ahead, but don't try to pass speculation on as fact.

[ylexot (Premo)]

At no time did I say that it was a fact that the terrorist bombing caused the turn in the Spanish election. However...

"Aznar's conservative Popular Party, which had led pre-election polls before the Madrid train bombings, fell from 183 seats to 148."

That would be a little something I call a FACT. That fact and some logical thought lead to the opinion that the terrorist bombing caused the turn in the Spanish election.

If you had read my post, you would see that I was commenting on how Supergrover was swayed by one editorial, but not the other despite the presentation of the same opinions. He was swayed by emotions because he thought one of the authors was "arrogant".

[SuperGrover]

Originally posted by ylexot
At no time did I say that it was a fact that the terrorist bombing caused the turn in the Spanish election. However...

"Aznar's conservative Popular Party, which had led pre-election polls before the Madrid train bombings, fell from 183 seats to 148."

That would be a little something I call a FACT. That fact and some logical thought lead to the opinion that the terrorist bombing caused the turn in the Spanish election.

If you had read my post, you would see that I was commenting on how Supergrover was swayed by one editorial, but not the other despite the presentation of the same opinions. He was swayed by emotions because he thought one of the authors was "arrogant".

before you start attacking people... where in the arrogant article does it say anything like this?

"No lie. It would be one thing if the Socialists were leading in the polls before the attacks, and then won the election. But that's not what happened. The Socialists had been generating little more than apathy and no-shows at the polls..."

the point is that, the open letter to spain just makes us into the "ugly americans" europe portrays us as.

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SuperGrover
the point is that, the open letter to spain just makes us into the "ugly americans" europe portrays us as.

And that would be YOUR interpretation and opinion. I, however, think both articles are exactly the same in tone and content.

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by SuperGrover
before you start attacking people... where in the arrogant article does it say anything like this?

"No lie. It would be one thing if the Socialists were leading in the polls before the attacks, and then won the election. But that's not what happened. The Socialists had been generating little more than apathy and no-shows at the polls..."

the point is that, the open letter to spain just makes us into the "ugly americans" europe portrays us as.

No the open letter to Spain portrays them as the cowards that they are. Now they lose their freedom and get to live in fear, just like the people of Afghanistan and Iraq use to do. I am paraphrasing this, but it is a quote. "A man that is willing to give up his freedom or liberty in order to obtain more safety and security, deserves neither."

[SuperGrover]

Originally posted by ceo_pte
No the open letter to Spain portrays them as the cowards that they are. Now they lose their freedom and get to live in fear, just like the people of Afghanistan and Iraq use to do. I am paraphrasing this, but it is a quote. "A man that is willing to give up his freedom or liberty in order to obtain more safety and security, deserves neither."

case in point

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SuperGrover
case in point

So you have a problem calling a coward a "coward". What should we call them instead?