loquitur

I'm interested in politics the way other people are interested in sports, except that I don't have a "team" that I root for. But I find the competitive process very interesting, and digging around behind it in the economic, philosophical, historical and polisci aspects is very stimulating.

Willravel, I'm skeptical of most politically-generated "change", primarily because of the sausage problem and the problem that it often can't be implemented without power being conferred on people who probably shouldn't have it. That's why specific narrow issues are fine to address through politics, but our happiness in life shouldn't be.

Willravel

I love game theory as much as the next person. As I said, for a time it was a sport for me (debate club). The things we discuss here have real world consequences, though. Sports are inconsequential by nature. They're entertainment. Sure, some people get meaning and substance in their lives from it, but when the Raiders lose the people in Oakland don't suffer because of it. Maybe some people get pissed. BFD. When evidence about WMD is fabricated/misrepresented? Conservative estimates in Iraq are something like 200,000, realistically it's probably a lot closer to a million deaths. I can't possibly think of that as a game. Could something on TFP have changed that? Probably not, but that still doesn't make it a game.

I don't mean to make you out as a bad guy or anything, I just wanted to make clear my perspective on this.
Testosterone has no place in politics when mature people are involved. I know it's a part of GT, but it feels like a failure when it comes into play.

You'll have to clarify on the "happiness in life" thing. I'm afraid you lost me on that.

loquitur

I try to stay detached from letting politics be an essential part of me. I think that's unhealthy, both for the individual and society. I took that lesson from the Federalist papers, actually.

Ustwo

As far as I can see no, they don't.

The things we discuss are have no more real world consequences than discussing the sports score.

Maybe and its a BIG maybe, a few votes may change because of this, but for the most part, nothing but pissing in the wind.

We are discussing these events as bit players, with only the most minor of influence. Pretty much everyone is making pronunciations on policy with absolutely no real inside information. For a while I had a friend working for two democrat senators, I got a lot of inside information but it was mostly fluff and character stuff, the real policy stuff he was in the dark as well on.

If TFP never existed nothing perceptible in real politics would change. Now maybe there is some great future parasite, er politician among us, but soon we get into just the infinite possibilities of life.

So it is just a game here no matter how mad you would get. Hell if hosts view of what the US should be became real I would be shooting people trying to make it so. This isn't internet tough guy bravado, its just a statement belief, some things are worth killing and dying for and not living under what would inevitably become a repressive totalitarian state is one of them.

But... because this is in fact only a debate club I'm not going to be checking the ammunition when he speaks of the coming revolution. Nor am I going to get upset when some kids barely out of school tell me how things 'should be' and how wrong I am.

I'm with loquitur on this about taking politics be too important to me. This was a conscious choice, it was either take a step back and stop complaining about stuff I wasn't going to get changed or become a very bitter person not fun to be around at cocktail parties.

Its been rather nice, and I've only dipped my toe back in by posting here, I'd far rather talk about the philosophies behind the beliefs then cleave rabbits on the specifics.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

I'll clarify: The topics we discuss are real, not inconsequential like sports.

Elphaba

Will, there are people willing to give this a go and those that are not. Why not give it a try with a topic and see how things shake out in a dry run? It will feel a bit artificial in some respects and that is ok, if we can shake out the kinks that may exist. I think it would be fair to ask the naysayers to give the topic a pass.

I have been toying with topic ideas since you began this thread and I think I found one that isn't likely to be an instant partisan flame. I haven't fleshed out the OP, but I would like to discuss/solve the issue of Veteran's benefits as they exist today. Are there societal benefits in literally "supporting the troops" and if so, what should they be and how should those benefits be financed. It's my hope that this topic will draw the interest of all of the tfp vets. Uncle Phil has *way* too much time on his hands.

What say you?

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Willravel

Okey Dokey!

Halx

Some people are afraid to be idealist.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Elphaba

Heh...I have no problem playing the fool; and idealist is a step up.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

ratbastid

But will, what Ustwo is saying--and I agree with him--is that he and I are NEVER going to see eye to eye on even the EXISTENCE of certain problems. We fundamentally can't have a "solution-centric discussion" when one of us is of the opinion that it's not a problem, unless that person is explicitly stifled out of the conversation and sidelined from all talk about it, and I can't really stand for that.

So... While I'm all for raising the bar on civility and mutual understanding (and I'll cop with some chagrin to having set that bar pretty darn low, myself), AND I'm interested in solutions to (what I see as) world problems, I'm not sure how you'd effectively have our discussions here be reliably in that mold. I agree with DC that adding a new layer of structure for every thread to fit inside of just seems stifling and unnecessary. And geez, what happens when a newbie comes along? We have a hard enough time even getting them up to the crummy standard of discourse we're already at!

Upshot: I like where you're looking, but I don't think we've settled on a workable way to get there.

EDIT (I really should have noticed the second page of this thread before posting...): I'm game to try this, as laid out in the last handful of posts. As long as it doesn't become the official Way Tilted Politics is Run, I'm definitely up for it an experiment.

Elphaba

ratbastard, I don't think Will is asking to structure all Politics topics into a SC mode. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think he is recommending an addition to the already existing discussion and debate modes that we have. I think the only change to Politics that he is suggesting is to identify each topic in the title as to how the thread starter wants to proceed with the topic. Here is a very crude example using Vet Benefits:

- Discussion: "Our vets don't seem to getting the help they need..."

- Debate: "Has Bushco evicerated the VA?"

- Solution: "What are the appropriate benefits for our vets and how do we finance them?"

I can't speak for Will, but I don't think he intended an all or nothing proposition. If he has, I would disagree with it as well.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Willravel

Not all or nothing, no. I created a test thread to see if people like the basic construct. I'd like to have a safe zone in Politics, not take away all of Politics.

Elphaba

Will, this is your baby. Would you like me to start the SC topic Re: Veteran's Benefits? I don't have a great history of topic starts or for that matter, putting a subject and verb together and getting my meaning understood.

Your choice, Will. Frankly, I would prefer that you launch this test, and I remain willing to do so, if you would prefer to observe and critique.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Willravel

I already did already. It's in "SC1: Healthcare".

Charlatan

I can agree that this could be an interesting way to approach discussion.

I agree with Ustwo's assessment that some positions are irreconcilable. There can be ways to continue the discussion without letting it derail. It's just a matter of respecting other's positions without dismissing them. This does not mean you have to agree with them. You just have to agree to disagree and move on.

There can even be parallel discussions within a thread wherein a different point of view can be discussed without belittling or derailing the rest of the conversation.

Just a thought.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ratbastid

Yeah, I saw that once I read the rest of the thread I was responding to...

dc_dux

Will....your SC 1 thread has rules and structure. You are effectively discouraging participation and an open discussion.

I would like to comment on the proposed free market solution...not a threadjack nor a personal insult, just a response to the problem I see with a free market approach to providing health care.

But based on your comments to posters 4, 5 and 6, it appears that I must answer a series of questions first in order to participate.

I guess I wont play on that thread.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

i found the first sc thread really constricting but only because i thought (and think) that the issue is too complex for the format. but it's happening anyway, and that's good. float a few more of these and see if we can collectively come to use them.

meanwhile, since i post to announce my non-participation in another thread, i figure it logical to also reference a non-existent thread:

i wish all comrades who play in this fishbowl a healthy and happy 2008.
it's a small bowl but it's our bowl.
and as fish, we're all in the same place: our fish-views may diverge, but we're all still fish.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Elphaba

I'm an angel fish. The best to you as well, rb.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007