Are you sure about that?

[Gainy]

I'm 100% sure of everything i'm not not 100% sure of, which is most things.

 

[b etor]

i'm usually about 80% sure.

 

[b etor]

woahhh that's like a perfect bell curve LOL

 

[Irish Caesar]

Opinions are just that, and mine are open to change, although it's impossible to be sure of a hypothetical scenario.

When I'm talking about nuclear energy, though, I'm not BS'ing y'all.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

woahhh that's like a perfect bell curve LOL

Indeed, nice

4 people who are absolutely sure about their stance on Iraq. Wow. I didn't expect that one to get any votes.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I have to much confidence, 90%.

 

[Tykinruoka]

I'm trying to stay open minded. There are only few things that I'm 100% sure. I changed my stance about the gun control in US recently.

 

[Truronian]

How do I go about measuring my sureness?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You guestimate.

Absolutely sure = 100%
Both sides of the argument have equal merit = 50%

Extrapolate your position from there.

Remember, the poll is specifically about the Iraq war. It would be almost impossible to measure it on all subjects.

 

[Adamb0mb]

I'm damn sure.

110% everytime.

I'm a goddamn Prophet.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I usually don't do threads about Iraq, but I might as well say a few words here.

When I read the discussions here I am often amazed at the certainty some people seem to have in their opinions about subjects when there are others who completely disagree and are just as certain their opinion is right. When I am debating, I regularly start doubting and seeing the point in other people's arguments, but for the sake of argument I cling to my position. When this has happened I usually slowly phase out of the debate. It's not so much fun defending a position which you feel has holes in the defence, when the oposition is firing away at you.

First of all, I am not representative for this board, so I suppose the great majority take a quite different approach to this than I do.
I don't regard this as a seminary. Politics is about objective interests and ideologies, and "right" and "wrong" must often be seen in that context. Usually when I post on OT nowadays, I do so to preach for the converted. I also had the habit to intervene in threads where somebody was claiming something incorrect (as in one current thread where some dull bourgeoise princess is slamming Marx and the evil lft without having any deeper knowledge about that than the cat has about mustard) but nowadays I rarely care. I prefer to fight my political battles in real life.

As an example I decide to use the Iraq war. Because it's a pickle for me. I was in favour of going into Iraq. I didn't believe Saddam had substantial WMD capacity to be a threat to us. I didn't believe he was anything more than a nuicanse to us. But to the Iraqis it's a different story. I was in favour of going into Iraq to free those people of a dictator and to try to bring democracy and stability to the region. I was a hippy in favour of war. All the other hippies laughed and pointed at me. At the moment I'm doubtfull.

I was always 100 % against this war, as I have been with every of the shameful imperialist enterprises of the USA. I regard it as important to oppose this as it was to oppose Germany in the 30s (For the thick ones; this is not someting that started with the current administration - I am unable to see any substantial difference between Reps and Dems and I couldn't stand Clinton).
And I am not at all happy with the hippy references, I really hope that that is some kind of irony. The whole hippy thing did a considerable amount of damage to real radical movements.

So, how sure are you that your position in this debate is the right one. 100% would mean that the oposition simply has no valid arguments. Nothing they say makes any sense. 50%, you're in limbo. The arguments in favour and the argument against balance each other out. And you find it hard to decide which ones have the most merit.

From my political position, formed by my social background, my studies of history, and general life experience; I am 100 % sure that I am "right".

Please vote in the poll

Done.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I rarely voice opinions about the Iraq war, partly for the reason I don't have all that many firm convictions about it.

 

[Leonel]

I usually say something like "if I recall correctly" or "it maybe the case..." or something to that effect in an effort to cover my bases if I'm proven wrong.

 

[boarder]

I think its just got a lot to do with peoples perceptions,upbringing,lifestyle,POB etc...
For example on these forums I have been accused more than once to of being a Terrorist supporter and a Jew hater,a brain washed Iranian. And yet on a Iran forum that I also read and contribute to I have been accused of being a Zionist and a agent for the CIA.

Well which is it I cant be both, or can i hmmmmm...

 

[Leonel]

I think its just got a lot to do with peoples perceptions,upbringing,lifestyle,POB etc...
For example on these forums I have been accused more than once to of being a Terrorist supporter and a Jew hater,a brain washed Iranian. And yet on a Iran forum that I also read and contribute to I have been accused of being a Zionist and a agent for the CIA.

Well which is it I cant be both, or can i hmmmmm...

You're an agent of the CIA? Cooooooool

 

[happy_Alex]

@Luceafarul

Hello ! Good post man.

Sorry to say I agreed with war in Iraq at the time, but then again my Labour PM told me I only had 45 minutes to live, so I'm not going to retrospectively change my position, even though I've been proven to be way of mark. I guess the trick is to be wise before the event.

I haven't changed my political stance since being on CFC even though some of the discussions on economics have been very intresting and educational., because my core socialist values have remained the same, and as you say life experience and study continues to reiterate those values. CFC is many things but I don't think it has the power to shift my core beliefs, so in that respect I argue from a position of confidence, though I may not be 'right' whatever that means anyway. Having said that there are posters here who are very eloquent and put thier point of views in a gentle way, kudos to those posters I try to emulate them though not very successfully. Bozo always presents his POV very well.

 

[mdwh]

What I mean is that if I'm less than 100% certain that something is true, I can't fault you for taking a position other than mine, even if I think you are wrong. (But I mis-wrote that)

Either they agree with you on the probability it is true - in which case, they believe in something where the probability is less than 50%, and you can fault them on that (I can't help feeling that there are some people who are like this, since they always resort to "But but, it's a matter of faith").

Or, they disagree with you in the probability, in which case you can fault them on how they arrived to their estimate (typical examples would be people who seem ignorant of facts and only stick to believing things which are proven false, whether it's creationism or believing the moon landings are fake - yet there is still a non-zero chance that they are correct).

 

[Nylan]

If it has to do with morals, it's pretty high, but certainly not 100%. Mostly it depends on my knowledge (or in some cases presumed knowledge) of the subject, and whether the opposition's arguments make any sense whatsoever or seem to be more than just twisting words around. I'm afraid I don't seem to ever get my point across very well, but it's there in force.

 

[mdwh]

I think the problem with the debate of Iraq is that many people will have different viewpoints on what issue is important.

So one person might be against, because he's 90% sure there were no WMD. Another person might be for, because he's 100% that we'd bring democracy to the region.

But if we just see one vote for 90%, and another for 100%, I'm not sure what that means.

It's also not clear if that's what the debate is about, or if it's a higher level - e.g., the latter person might only be 60% sure that democracy is the right way to judge if the war is right. Though I'm not sure you can even quantify that - it's a matter of opinion.

 

[History_Buff]

85%-95%, because I pick my battles.

While I don't really have strong opinions on somethings (Iraq and Abortion for instance), I am absolutely sure on others.