The problem as I see it is that people feel the need to back up their positions with quotes and events that have occured, because they have to prove that their position is in line with the realities of the world.
But the truth, it seems to me, is that because of the very reflexive nature of the world, it is most likely impossible to be able to predict every event that will happen in a given set of circumstances and then try to enact policies that discourage or eliminate the negative consequences of those events.
Comparable to trying to find the location of an electron orbiting an atom, I believe that we are pretty much limited to probabilities, there will always be uncertainty and you cannot be 100% sure.
And so, perhaps, there may always be evidence to support a contrary opinion.
The question is, for me- does the idea that it's practically impossible mean that it is not worth trying anyway?
That said, JustJess makes a very good proposition for us to begin taking up our own views and abolishing labels entirely. There was a period when my viewpoints started radicalizing (at least by the unstated standards of the majority of posters here) and I found that if I didn't have to resort to adopting such views on the world, I would make a great ... "conservative" (so much for abolishing labels). What I mean to say is that I would probably be identified as a conservative in some respects by others regarding some of my views, if I actually believed it would work (and these are views which I would personally hold in an ideal world). I would propose that the given country in which I reside retain a small government, lower taxation and cut a vast majority of what I believe to be unnecessary programs, and retain a fiscal economic policy.
On this bit about topics being more fit in paranoia- I gotta tell ya, even a logical and rational journey from viewpoint A to viewpoint B would have people believing you are a loon (or "batshit" as others are adopting this term, I love the zaniness) because they were never there in your shoes, because they have such a hard time understanding how one could hold viewpoint B that they reject it outright.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
Here is my proposal: Any personal attack, any at all, is called by the other participants in the discussion who recognize the personal attack. In calling "personal attack," all you have to do is quote the offending message and write "Personal Attack" underneath it. Once a poster is called for making a personal attack, no one would make any further responses to that person in that thread. Period.
|
I wholeheartedly agree with what Charlatan said =o
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Astrocloud
...they are denigrating an opponents position:
1) Regardless of whether or not the TFP member actually holds that position
2) Without refering to an actual other TFP member by name (thus finding a "loophole")
...
So there are obviously going to be some problems on TFP when those radio listeners (or whoever) come on and repeat what they hear -because it's insulting.
|
Not that I disagree with you, but what you said did lead me to wonder: aren't you also in some lesser way denigrating someone's position by warning us to be on the lookout for ignorant radio show listeners?
And if you aren't, isn't it possible that what you said could be used to the same end, regardless?
And if that was true, what could be done about it?