host

roachboy, I think the best recent examples of what you describe are the answers to the death penalty and the taxes questions in the "6 questions" thread. Those who favor the death penalty and believe that taxes are only for the purpose of raising enough revenue to fund government operations, mostly shun discussion of whether any authority is uncorrupted or reliable enough to be entrusted by "the people", with the authority to determine who is guilty and administer a non-revocable (death) penalty. The soluition for most is to refuse to consider it as a significant consequence or as a problem.

On the problem of growing wealth inequity and the role of politics in confronting and attempting to mitigate it, there is a refusal to link it as a consequence of taking the position that taxation is not to be used as a tool to remediate inequirty. From this POV, there seems to be a refusal to accept or discuss what politics is...that it is the peaceful way of dealing with power and wealth sharing, as opposed to the alternative....violence coming from factions that eventually anticipate no possibility of a political remedy. When it is an increasingly vast and poorer majority, the consequences of a POV that refuses to consider politics as a solution to the problem, will result in shocking effects on the wealthy minority.

But they do it....the death penalty and taxation are compartmentalized neatly away from the way they actually influence the social structure. I don't know how or if, in this compartmentalization, the issues of wrongful or unequal capital punishment or growing wealth inequity could or would ever be addressed.....and it's a similar compartmentalization....decoupling of almost every issue we attempt to discuss, solve, identify.

Again, ottopilot, what is the appropriate way, in your opinion...to respond to this?
Did you read and think about my response (post #24). If you did, what do you think my strongest or weakest point was? If you had to choose a post that could be called "name calling", would it be #21, or #24. Which of the two more closely approximates "discussion", as in, sharing opinions, making your points of fact, and backing them up?

If you "operate" in a different way here, than I do....if it is more like the way the statements in the quote box are "structured", than what is it? What do you call it? Is it political discussion, "chatter", "hot air", slurs and more, or slurs and nothing more?

What does "quality of discussion", mean to you? Is it closer to name calling, labeling, or "this is my opinion", and these are the influences shaping it. Did you read them, what do you think? Do I have it mostly right or wrong? Are my sources weak, are the authors of the pieces I excerpted, biased? Do you have other examples of their bias or unreasonableness? Or....do you use a different process to digest the posts of others? I show you how I do it.

Post #24 potentially brings details to you that you may not have already been aware of. They either affect your opinion of "how things are going", or, they don't. If they don't, do you ignore them without weighting them or trying to refute them....or do you operate in a different way?

Is the "war on terror" going well? Is it too expensive to be sustained, considering the "progress". Is the US military and diplomatic effort exacerbating or diminishing the "threat". Do you have anything I can read that tends to counter what I've posted in #24, <h3>or, do you agree that I'm "ultraleft" because of some reasoning process that you've gone through that you cannot or choose not to post here?

What is it? All of my cards are ALWAYS on the table, are yours? Are Ustwo's?
</h3>
This could be a simple of a process as "raise", "call", or "fold". Pick one and show your cards. If you won't show your cards, you fold by default, or does it work some other way?