Even if you derive opinions from facts,
then that should mean they are impartial right?
But even if you do that, you tend to have certain opinions just cause the facts lead you that way, and people will argue with you, not because they argue truth, but because you are on a certain side and some people disagree regardless of potential facts.
And it may turn out that there are facts supporting something on an opposite side. So even if you tried to be impartial, you missed some facts and your thoughts led you down to a certain side that ended up misleading you cus there were facts that could have defeated those original facts and helped the other side.
For example, there could be a political leader that always tells the truth and a political leader that always lies.
So you like the person who tells the truth cus you like truth.
But then the roles switch and you get sad, because you are not willing to switch sides, cus in the end even though you didn't know it yourself, it was never about the truth, you supported that side and when the roles switched you began to support lies anyway.
Your opinion that the first politician was better was not about unbiased facts, it was still something that drew you to liking that more than the other, and you were not willing to switch sides when the time came. But not even you yourself knew this, so you would never have admitted this to anyone.
So you think you care about being impartial, but really the conclusions you draw from being impartial leads you towards a certain opinion, and when that opnion isn't validated you get sad and you decide the facts don't matter anymore anyway.
No matter how much truth you use for your opinions they always have a side which you can be for or against cus of emotional reasons.
then that should mean they are impartial right?
But even if you do that, you tend to have certain opinions just cause the facts lead you that way, and people will argue with you, not because they argue truth, but because you are on a certain side and some people disagree regardless of potential facts.
And it may turn out that there are facts supporting something on an opposite side. So even if you tried to be impartial, you missed some facts and your thoughts led you down to a certain side that ended up misleading you cus there were facts that could have defeated those original facts and helped the other side.
For example, there could be a political leader that always tells the truth and a political leader that always lies.
So you like the person who tells the truth cus you like truth.
But then the roles switch and you get sad, because you are not willing to switch sides, cus in the end even though you didn't know it yourself, it was never about the truth, you supported that side and when the roles switched you began to support lies anyway.
Your opinion that the first politician was better was not about unbiased facts, it was still something that drew you to liking that more than the other, and you were not willing to switch sides when the time came. But not even you yourself knew this, so you would never have admitted this to anyone.
So you think you care about being impartial, but really the conclusions you draw from being impartial leads you towards a certain opinion, and when that opnion isn't validated you get sad and you decide the facts don't matter anymore anyway.
No matter how much truth you use for your opinions they always have a side which you can be for or against cus of emotional reasons.