shakran

If that's a commentary on Host's posting method, then I see where you're coming from. I'll admit I don't always read through the reams of information he posts myself, and I'm on his side. On the other hand, it IS really nice to see a guy who can back up EVERY SINGLE FACT he talks about by citing sources, and who's willing to do that.

I was attacking your ideas, not you personally. I do not feel one has to do the "well I understand and respect your ideas but perhaps you could look at it this way" to get a point across. That's frankly for PC BSers, and I don't have much patience for them. State your opinon. Be blunt about it. We're big boys and girls. We can take it.


To a point I agree with you. However I must admit that I don't have the patience to be supportive and encouraging when someone says something appallingly stupid. I was in a discussion once about violence on TV where one participant kept telling everyone the only solution was to outlaw television. I tried to be nice. I really did, but on about the 5th time he espoused that brilliant idea I said what everyone else was thinking, and what frankly needed to be said. If an idea is abjectly stupid, we should have the freedom to say that. If I call your idea stupid, that doesn't mean it's a personal attack on you, and it doesn't mean you have to sit there and take it either. If you don't think your idea is stupid, then tell us why. If it's really not stupid, I'd be the one to look like an idiot, not you.



And that's exactly what I did in my reply to you. I picked your ideas apart. I did not call you an idiot, or any other name.



Difficult to respond to this one, since you and I agree on Bush's handling of the economy But if I were wrong and thought that Bush was doing fine with the economy, I should pick your statement apart, if possible. Truly good ideas cannot be logically picked apart. Sure, you can pick 'em apart with stupid BS, but the folks around here are generally smart enough to see through that.

I am not attacking you personally. I'm sorry if you feel that I am.

It is not necessary for me to see your side. No, I can't see your side. You're wrong here. 100% flat out wrong. That doesn't mean you're an idiot. It doesn't mean I don't see your side in other threads you participate in. But you are arguing the polar opposite to what I am arguing. As far as tone, we both used the same tone in our respective posts. You told me "With all due respect Shakran, that is elitist bullshit." Calling my idea elitist bullshit isn't exactly respectful, and if you think that putting the "with all due respect" in front of it tones it down you're sorely mistaken. Are you suggesting that all I had to do in my reply was start it out with "with all due respect" and you'd have been totally fine with everything else I said? Look, you bashed my idea because you 100% disagree with it. That's OK. I'm a big kid now, I can take it. Honest. I didn't get mad. I didn't even get irritated.

I think that's the problem with this board. Some people want us to spend a crapload of time being syrupy-nice to each other. That's simply not needed. I don't have a personal problem with anyone in here. Do I disagree with 'em? Hell yes. Ustwo and I have bashed each other's ideas for a VERY long time now. And ya know what? When we agree with each other, here or in another forum, we joke about it. He and I disagree. Doesn't mean I don't respect or dislike him or vice versa. I think his political ideas are completely wrong, and he thinks the same about mine. That doesn't mean we have to sit there complimenting and "respecting" each other for half an hour before we get down to the debate.


I'll tell ya something. If I needed an internet political forum to feel good about myself, I'd have a lot more problems than even you apparently think I have. I'm not here to feel good about myself. I'm here because I enjoy debating. Debate is a competition. It's like sports, only fat people like me can play too I hold no illusions that I'm going to totally change people's worldview. I will NEVER convince Ustwo that the dems are right and the republicans are wrong. Simply won't happen. But ya know what? I don't need to, nor do I care to. However, if Ustwo and I debate it out, those who are more on the fence might be exposed to our ideas and make a choice themselves. He doesn't have to cite sources, but he's gonna look awful foolish if he doesn't. Same goes for me.

As for this particular discussion, yes I'm absolutely out to show that you are wrong (though I'm not out to destroy you). You are trying to turn this forum into Philosophy 2.0. Political debate is rough and tumble by its very nature, and dammit, that's OK. There's absoultely nothing wrong with that. As long as we aren't turning to personal attacks (you're an idiot, what are you stupid, etc) it's OK to show why other people's ideas are wrong.

And how am I supposed to do that if I'm not supposed to attack and/or destroy the ideas that do not agree with those beliefs?


Actually it all comes down to who has the most logical opinion and has the best facts to support it. I can cite documents by the flat-earth society (yes, it actually exists, believe it or not) "proving" that the world is flat. You can cite a globe and a picture of the earth from the shuttle. Who wins, me with screwey documents written by a collective of nutjobs, or you with concrete evidence?

Now, you can choose not to cite sources if you want, but then you take the risk that if I'm a good enough debater, I might just convince someone that the world is flat.

True. So we look into the sources. Who cites the most reliable sources. Turns out that most of the sources cited by the "it's just hooey period" crowd are studies undertaken by scientists working for, or for whom the project has at least been paid for by, the oil companies. Funny, but I don't consider that a very unbiased scientific source.

Well I never suggested that we should cite bullshit sources. Frankly if you go and cite a bullshit source, you're gonna get ripped apart, and rightfully so. But if you hit me with several reliable, trusted sources, it's gonna be much harder for me to argue back.


Here we agree. Cite sources. I don't feel it is necessary to post the ENTIRE source.


Well I don't think many of us are just posting articles and then parroting them. My style is to tell you the facts (here's fact 1, fact 2, fact 3) and then tell you that BECAUSE of these facts, such and such is true. You can then either attack my sources, attack my conclusions, or both.

Um. . . .What?


Well then I'd better learn to back up that crazy assed bullshit to prove that it isn't. . . . or I'd better not post crazy assed bullshit, hadn't I?


You're wrong.


And you accuse me of taking YOUR ideas to extremes? I never said ordinary people can't debate. Anyone can debate. But if they don't debate smart - i.e. have sources to back up what they claim as fact - they can expect to get nailed for it. That's not elitist any more than it's elitist to expect a kid to get the right answers on the math test before you mark the answers as being correct.

Your belief is 100% wrong. What I want to see happen, frankly, is for people to buck up. I see too much shit on the other forums around here whining about how "mean" politics is and how people are afraid to come in here and how they're "allergic" to it, and all I can think is, WHY. We have 41 other forums where we can be nice to each other and not attack each other's ideas. What in hell is wrong with one where we can (intelectually, non-personally) mix it up? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, but don't bitch to everyone that the stove is warm. It's supposed to be that way.

No, we dont' want to see pages of bullshit. I'd like to see moderation concentrate on citing decent sources. If more people were held to the idea of citing real sources instead of "dood bush sucks and everyone knows it" type of crap that we see so much of around here.

And ya know what? That's OK. You have the right to your opinion, and you have the right to express it. And I don't mind that you disagree with me. Really.




Actually if you'll look back before the republicans took their infamous "thumpin" there were plenty of republicans in here, and they were spouting just as much bullshit as anyone from the left. I don't think the right has abandoned politics because we're too mean. I think they've abandoned politics because it's now impossible for them to tell us "you're wrong, we're the majority, deal with it." It's gotten VERY difficult for someone on the right to win a debate because their party has been mismanaged to the hilt by Bush and unfortunately many don't make a distinction between a real republican (which we haven't seen in office since before Carter was president) and the neo-con crap that Bush et al puts forward.