Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatJustice]

So thanks for (reluctantly) admitting that.

I didn't admit anything, because I didn't argue anything otherwise.  I was pointing out what a ridiculous argument and ridiculous example it is to try to support any point in the first place, and how you were going to take any reply as an excuse to pat yourself on the back.

And yeah, Somali history really is quite a departure from American politics.  Care to tell everyone why you decided to bring it up?

I don't know, maybe you should read back a bit and find out why it was brought up or something. Last I checked it was a point tacked onto a minor side discussion that you decided to tackle for some reason.

[mainiac]

I was pointing out what a ridiculous argument and ridiculous example it is to try to support any point in the first place, and how you were going to take any reply as an excuse to pat yourself on the back.

The entire thread in a sentence.

[misko27]

What in the name of Hamburger Hill's fallen is going on here?!?
 
From now on, wheneer I re-enter this thread after more then, say, a page has passed, I will say something like that. Because it's always apropos.

[mainiac]

I have a theory for why this threat and it's ancestor are a blight on the forum.

On the internet it's perfectly acceptable to start an argument irresponsibly.  Nobody condemns your behavior if you raise 15 controversial points.  Stubbornness is slightly condemned but not all that much.

Perversely what we do condemn is the typical way that arguments end.  Like it or not but name calling is a pretty good way for an argument to end.  Bob calls sue a fascist pig, Sue calls Bob a commie thug and both go on their ways happy.  It ain't no symposium but it lets everyone get on their way.  And it actually does serve to weed out the conversation.  When people resort to name calling too quickly they discredit themselves.  This sets up the perfect ad homnium attack "you always say that."  And hey it's a logical fallacy but it serves to abort conversations.

Clearly the solution here is to start being ruder to each other.  Embrace the ad homnium attack for the sake of our children.  If you don't you are an uneducated git who clearly doesn't understand what I'm saying.

[Moghjubar]

I have a theory for why this threat and it's ancestor are a blight on the forum....
 Embrace the ad homnium attack for the sake of our children.  If you don't you are an uneducated git who clearly doesn't understand what I'm saying.

Bah, go climb some stairs you damned Dalek Exorcist!

[mainiac]

This guy gets it.  Which is surprising considering that he's a nickelback fan.

_{(Too far?)}

[Knight of Fools]

This guy gets it.  Which is surprising considering that he's a nickelback fan.

Oh, no you didn't!


I think the biggest problem is that the conversation is perceived as one where we need to convince the other "side" as to why we're right, rather than try to help them understand our own viewpoint. The only way anyone should "win" a political argument is when both parties come to a better understanding of the other. No need to change your opinions, no need to feel superior because of your ideology... Just try to understand why someone thinks something.

That's what I feel political discussions should be about. Want to win? Understand your opponent, and help them understand you. Preferably with a minimal amount of screaming.

[misko27]

As always, my intention is not to convince, but to sow doubt in the minds of the passive supporters of my opponent.
 
As of right now, my opponent is people who are discussing US political ideology, instead of the politics, which, in the end, determines the ideology.

[alway]

This guy gets it.  Which is surprising considering that he's a nickelback fan.

Oh, no you didn't!


I think the biggest problem is that the conversation is perceived as one where we need to convince the other "side" as to why we're right, rather than try to help them understand our own viewpoint. The only way anyone should "win" a political argument is when both parties come to a better understanding of the other. No need to change your opinions, no need to feel superior because of your ideology... Just try to understand why someone thinks something.

That's what I feel political discussions should be about. Want to win? Understand your opponent, and help them understand you. Preferably with a minimal amount of screaming.

Actually, no. The only way to win a political discussion is to understand that the only person's views you will change are your own. If you get nothing out of the discussion worth thinking about, you just wasted your time. In particular, you should view it as a self-examination through Socratic process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

[mainiac]

I don't really think there is any lack of understanding between the principle flamers.  Aqizzer was able to precisely predict what GreatJustices next post would be...

I'd say that mostly what I get out of these flame wars is that they prompt me to research stuff I'm interested in but wouldn't have otherwise thought about.

[Bauglir]

... Aqizzar was flaming?

[Moghjubar]

Sigh... if only political science wasn't an oxymoron and was actually scientific then at least the discussions would be more interesting.

Observe phenomenon, form hypothesis, design experiment, create small country for hosting experiment, run experiment, interpret results.  Oh, and of course step X: get funded.

What seems to happen: One side presents argument, another a different argument, some bad to fair data gets presented, sides dismiss each others data (often because it is bad, of course), and then the same argument happens again / on other forums / etc over and over again and never seems to evolve anywhere except that no one ever changes an opinion, and nothing gets logged into any database that people look at (or at least take the time to anyway) to see what the real facts are.

[misko27]

I theorize this isn't even a thread about politics, but one rather of controlled flame-wars of various controversial topics not spoken aloud, with good reason, in polite society. No one wants to stop the arguing. If you did, this thread wouldn't exist. The previous one had a purpose. This is just ideological ranting,with only a distant basis in the intended subject matter. Indeed, there are many things in politics, important things, that haven't even been discussed, simply because they are not controversial enough to provoke a argument.
 
This was me arguing against your method of arguing with your method of arguing.

[Knight of Fools]

Sigh... if only political science wasn't an oxymoron and was actually scientific then at least the discussions would be more interesting.

Observe phenomenon, form hypothesis, design experiment, create small country for hosting experiment, run experiment, interpret results.  Oh, and of course step X: get funded.

What seems to happen: One side presents argument, another a different argument, some bad to fair data gets presented, sides dismiss each others data (often because it is bad, of course), and then the same argument happens again / on other forums / etc over and over again and never seems to evolve anywhere except that no one ever changes an opinion, and nothing gets logged into any database that people look at (or at least take the time to anyway) to see what the real facts are.

Politics operates on such a huge scale, though, that the combined human factor is capable of destroying even flawless systems. It's impossible to understand why a system works in one place and doesn't in another without an in-depth examination of qualities that are, by nature of their complexity, not quantifiable.

I don't really think there is any lack of understanding between the principle flamers.  Aqizzer was able to precisely predict what GreatJustices next post would be...

I'm talking about understanding ideologies, not people.

Actually, no. The only way to win a political discussion is to understand that the only person's views you will change are your own. If you get nothing out of the discussion worth thinking about, you just wasted your time. In particular, you should view it as a self-examination through Socratic process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

It's perfectly possible to learn about something and not agree with it. I can learn about Communism, for example, but decide that Capitalism is better for our society. I can even accept the virtues of Communism just as much as I can abhor the vices of Capitalism. Because I understand both, my opinion that Capitalism is better is strengthened, whereas before it was simply blind acceptance of something I was familiar with. Understanding and learning about different views may even lead to the development of a new solution, which is just as valuable.

That's what the conversation should be about, not proving one view better or "right". What's better or right for me may not be for someone else, but both of us should be able to understand and accept each other's opinions. Whether or one someone is converted in the course of the conversation is just an occasional side effect of an open and civil conversation. The important thing is whether or not someone learned something.

Either that or I'm completely misinterpreting what you're trying to say.


I'm going to quit trying to respond to all the ninjas now.

[misko27]

Finally, I theorize I will continue to be ignored(except possibly this post, for meta reasons relating to possibly attacking others viewpoints) unless I add to the arguing, by either supporting or fighting against a point which has someone's "reputation", or more accurately, ego, staked on it, which would provoke a heated response. The reason being two-fold, one, people not wanting to accept they are wrong, and two, not caring to, or perhaps, not wanting to, stop. Indeed, the supposed mediators and third parties are, in fact, adding to the arguments, amongst themselves even!
 
As such, this is no longer the politics thread. I move for a change of name.