Chavez, castro, 9/11, etc...what's a guy to do?

[The Straight Story]

I see a lot of threads full of interesting things on some items/people (noted in OP title). I then frequently see opposing view points and hear the usual call for 'back up your assertions'.

Then someone finds some articles supporting their view and the source is said to be biased and unreliable (and to me, most all sources do have a bias anyway). The argument is dismissed, please try again. Rinse. Repeat.

One could search govt archives of documents, but if it does not support their view then it is because that person in the goverment is pro-repug, or they funded it, etc. Same with news items, could be NY times, wash po, etc and if not the core source found wanting then it is the author or editor.

So what the heck is considered a good source? Obviously, on some things like chavez and castro, none exist because if they hold a differing opinion they are all propoganda. I see this same thing on the 9/11 forum day in and out as I do here in GD on some issues.

If the same source said something bad about bush or a repug, it is considered good and truthful information, but attack someone we like and provide information on them that puts them in a negative light and it cannot be trusted.

I guess the only way we might learn the truth is to openly examine the good and bad recorded and try to make sense of it, ie (to me), try to prove your own beliefs to be wrong and see if you can (while keeping an honest and open mind).

You might find some interesting things like this for example:
www.ndu.edu/inss/symposia/pacific2006/watsonpaper.pdf

A PANDA IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD:. CHINA’S EVOLVING INVOLVEMENT IN LATIN AMERICA. Cynthia A. Watson, PhD. 1. Professor of Strategy. The National War College
(not a positive or negative rendition in general, an anlaysis of why china is cautious in investing more there)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I listened to many here on Chavez and Castro (personally, I think castro is a more interesting person to study) and decided to look into all myself (and have been for some time due to previous discussions). But no matter what I can dig up on anyone I have come to realize is immaterial. People have their minds generally made up. If you don't like what you hear, it is rejected, and the other person is a dupe/stooge/brainwahsed/etc.

SO what's the solution? Is it even possible to have a conversation where we try to educate ourselves or are we so stuck (myself included) in our desire to have things exist one way that we don't entertain that the truth may be something which has eluded us?

I dunno, sorry for the long rant, just trying to learn.

[iamthebandfanman]

1. its a combination of reasons

people have become distrusting of media outlets(and rightfully so , because everyone seems to pick sides these days) AND the other reason is people just dont like to be WRONG. lol. there are people on this board who act as arrogant, if not more so, as any advant republican ive had the displeasure of speaking with. i dont understand it myself, but like you say you cant question people without being attacked or dismissed so eventually you just learn to not even try. :)

[The Straight Story]

2. It is hard to try at times, especially when

the source seems solid. But then is dismissed.

Example, I search a lot of government sites (using http://www.google.com/ig/usgov ) but then those docs are useless as it could have been a military person that wrote them, etc. And if it comes from a dem senator (as an example) and is not in line with what the person wants to hear it is simply because that dem was ignorant on that issue, etc and so on.

NOW that does not mean there is not justification for claims of bias and ignorance. I think we should examine sources but not use that as the sole litmus test. I do find it of interest though how the same source can be both great and awful - like if general X came out today and said things were going well with iraq, we would hammer said general. If he said it was going bad we would quote him (even if he was best buddies with elected dems and was biased, we would see him as being truthful and ignore the bias). The military puts out assessments and if they don't back our view they are bogus, if they do back it we use it as proof.

Maybe because I was born a libra I tend to like to see all sides of something, even if I am shown wrong. Hell, I could be totally wrong about my thoughts on chavez, I am willing to learn. But I want to discuss both sides and since both sides throw out the sources of the either side I am left in the middle of the road without a map :)