Is this for real?

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Saturday, July 23, 2005 19:40
VIEWED: 4249
PAGE 3 of 5

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 11:14 PM

So- how do we get past taking AT each other and digging into reality to find the truth? How do we raise the level of discourse, not only between political parties but between political parties and their intended consituents, and even here on the board?

I suppose we COULD try to eliminate name-calling and snide remarks altho for me that would be really really REALLY difficult . The other thing that might be helpful is if people provided the basis for their comments. But what might REALLY help is if people responded directly to each other. You know, not changing the subject, not ignoring or dismissing or cutting off other peoples' comments, but following a line of evidence or reasoning to it's end and judging contributions along the way by some agreed-on criteria: It is factual? Is it complete? Is it relevant? Is it predictive? Does it support or weaken the hypothesis?

Gosh- you know, it seems pretty easy if we try doing THAT instead of what we're doing now. I wouldn't mind trying if other people wouldn't mind trying. There are a lot of very intelligent people on the board. It SHOULD be possible to put our heads together instead of butting them against each other.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Your a bit to much of a political zealot to be taken seriously.

He's intense, but then again so are you. There's a lot of intensity around here.
Seriously, we're talkin' about core beliefs here (not my stupid thread...) and buttons get pushed fast.
If someone says something that gets you upset, chances are there's at least a little truth to it, or it wouldn't get ya that way.
So let's cool it on the name callin' already all you

Nerf-Herders!

Can't we all git along Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So- how do we get past taking AT each other and digging into reality to find the truth? How do we raise the level of discourse, not only between political parties but between political parties and their intended consituents, and even here on the board?

Politically, I think it's going to take some doing. The first thing that must happen, in my opinion, is to break up the two-party dynasty of the republicans and democrats. I've harped on it before, so I won't go into detail again, but I really do believe the winner-take-all, two choice voting style we use makes for a lot of unhappy people.

Personally, I have more hope. It begins with, as I'm hoping to do here, getting people off the party talking points and looking for the truth rather than trying to create it. Republicans and Democrats alike would do us all a huge favor if they quit thinking in terms of sound bites and media manipulation, and instead just get into some honest discussion of what we value and what our government ought to be doing.

Quote:
You know, not changing the subject, not ignoring or dismissing or cutting off other peoples' comments, but following a line of evidence or reasoning to it's end and judging contributions along the way by some agreed-on criteria: It is factual? Is it complete? Is it relevant? Is it predictive? Does it support or weaken the hypothesis?

I gotta say, that's probably my biggest pet peeve. It's usually Bush fans that I'm frustrated with, but I'll acknowledge that most of us do it. I can't count the times that people will intentionally miss the point someone is trying to make and rather than respond to it, pick apart some offhand comment because its an easier target.

Another, related point. Internet argument is, unfortunately, very susceptible to the "strawman" fallacy. It works so well online because it's possible to go on and on misinterpreting your adversaries arguments without interruption. In real life, some would scream bullshit before you got more than a few sentences out. Online you can drone on and on, until the original point you're responding to has been completely forgotten. Which often seems to be the point.

Speaking of droning.... I'll leave it at that for now.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:28 AM

I gotta make one more point (call it perservation on my part). One of the things that would REALLY help- I think- would be if we were clear about what were were discussing in the first place. Some people think the controversy around Rove is a surrogate for missing WMD. Other people think it's an indicator of a generally corrupt administration. Still others approach it as a narrow legalistic issue. We're all arguing different arguments. Perhaps it would be helpful if a particular hypothesis would be clearly and specifically stated: "I think Karl is being unfairly railroaded" or "I think Karl Rove mishandled classified information". Then if we all just stuck to that discussion, responding to the inevitable questions (Define "fair". What is your evidence?) without going off on tangents we'd all get a lot farther.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:51 AM

In other words, what you are saying is that Sarge put up the posting merely to insult the right-wing. So, without putting words into Sarge's mouth- what does Sarge say about it?

Sarge- You appear to make several points in your posts: The unformity of thought among the right wing, the press' unthinking repetition, and the evils of subsituting "talking points" for actual discussions. Since you started the thread, I guess you should clarify the topic. The floor, as they say, is yours....

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
"Republicans are stupid"
"Bush Lied"
"No Iraqi WMD"
"Karl Rove is evil"
"evil neocons" and its related "PNAC conspiracy"
"Bush will restart the draft"
"Republicans will destroy Social Security"

Some of this is true, and some of it is not, like everything else most people talk about; you could find Democratic counterparts for most of these statements, again, some true and some not.
If you're gonna get angry, flame or be funny! The superiority thing doesn't make it, from either side.
Or reasonably discuss, that's also possible. Remember, anger leads to the Dark side.

Move along, move along Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:42 AM

All of my arguments apply equally well to the Democrats as to the Republicans. If I can find one of these put out by the Dems, I'll post it too, with the same complaints about contrived arguments and groupthink.

I will admit to one ulterior motive, however. I'm hoping that some of us, at least, will begin to see just how much we are played by the two major parties and the media. I'm also hoping that at least some Republicans will find the whole affair embarassing and ask for a little more from their leadership.

I'm sorry if Lynch feels 'trapped' by this post. I just happen to think this kind of political manipulation, and the activities it's attempting to whitewash, are a disgrace to the integrity of the nation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:50 AM

Lynch, the comment about the neo-con apologists remark was meant to be tongue in cheek (next time I'll put a smiley face).

Apparently you didn't read anything beyond the first post, but you should. Perhaps you'd have a better understanding of the point I'm trying to make. As it is, I have no intention of taking YOUR bait and turning this into another partisan shouting match.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:13 AM

Fair enough.

So which of my assertions are 'very questionable'?

For the record.

I think the Talking Points strategy is bad for political discourse. If you look carefully at the points, they are mostly distractions from the main issue, not refutations. They are carefully crafted to draw attention away from the acknowledged fact that the Bush administration was engaged in an aggressive campaign to discredit a critic. (Is this what we pay them for?)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FIVVER

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:20 AM

Sarge,

Here are some links of the Democrats doing exactly the same thing. All of these are from the www.democrats.org web site. At the bottom the site claims to be paid for by the Democratic National Committee.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/07/empty_rhetoric_1.php

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/07/bush_speech_mor.php

Folks, everyone does it. I'll introduce a new villan here and wantlob a few smallish beagle droppings at the members of the press who are too lazy to actually investigate and report but simply regurgitate this stuff.

"IF YOU ARE TWENTY, AND YOU ARE NOT A LIBERAL, YOU DON'T HAVE A HEART, BUT IF YOU ARE FORTY, AND YOU ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE, YOU DON'T HAVE A BRAIN." Winston Churchill

Fivver the Paleocon

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE