I read this somewhere, but I'm not sure where now. "There are two problems with freedom. One is that it is so easily abused. The other is that it is so damn superior to the alternatives."The thrid is that it lacks a definition. I hear all the time that Eurpoeans "have less freedom" than Americans, but yet they can do things we can't (go topless without becoming registered sex offenders, smoke a joint without going to the slammer), and we can do some things they can't (own an arsenal). Yet we happily claim they're "less free."
I think it comes down to most of us not considering the "things they can do that we can't" necessary to "freedom" - perhaps nice options, but not necessary - while the "things we can do that they can't" are the stuff we would never consider ourselves free without.
Frankly, I'm rather happy we can't have people walking around topless...
Where's the country I can move to that have topless women carrying guns? :P
It depends on who that person is. :)
Frankly, I'm rather happy we can't have people walking around topless...
What you do in the privacy of your home is your business.
I read this somewhere, but I'm not sure where now. "There are two problems with freedom. One is that it is so easily abused. The other is that it is so damn superior to the alternatives."The thrid is that it lacks a definition. I hear all the time that Eurpoeans "have less freedom" than Americans, but yet they can do things we can't (go topless without becoming registered sex offenders, smoke a joint without going to the slammer), and we can do some things they can't (own an arsenal). Yet we happily claim they're "less free."I think it comes down to most of us not considering the "things they can do that we can't" necessary to "freedom" - perhaps nice options, but not necessary - while the "things we can do that they can't" are the stuff we would never consider ourselves free without.
Frankly, I'm rather happy we can't have people walking around topless...
There are places in the US where people can walk around naked (e.g. nudist colonies).
EDIT: On topic, I think looking back as if there was a time when bipartismship was common is looking through rose tinted glasses. Heck, in the past there has been duels and even people getting beaten in the house of congress itself. If you really wish to have a more collegiate atmosphere, then people need to refrain from classify those they disagree with in negative terms. If someone is for improved border security, calling them a racist isn't helping. Just as if someone is for making sure that all children have adequate healthcare being called a socialist isn't.
I doubt too many people would complain if she was walking around topless. Her, her, or her either.What you do in the privacy of your home is your business.It depends on who that person is. :)
Frankly, I'm rather happy we can't have people walking around topless...
Well, I'm more prudent than most, so.... heh.
Well, I'm more prudent than most, so.... heh.
Prudency is a disease that has a cure. :P
|
Actually, Kirth, David identified himself as pro-choice but hopes they choose life. I agree with that position wholeheartedly. But both of us also recognise that, ultimately, it's not our decision (unless we're the farther, then I'd expect to have some input).In the scenario you outlined, I would have no problem with abortion being avalible for her, with parental or some other guardian's consent.So you and I agree all the way down the line, point-for-point it seems, and yet you identify as "pro-life," and I identify as "pro-choice." It's amazing what polarizing politics will do for you!
My only issue with this is even if you are the father you do not have any input at all.
Well, I'm more prudent than most, so.... heh.Prudency is a disease that has a cure. :P
I disagree and choose to pass.
I think it comes down to most of us not considering the "things they can do that we can't" necessary to "freedom" - perhaps nice options, but not necessary - while the "things we can do that they can't" are the stuff we would never consider ourselves free without.
Or vice-versa, for them? If I understand this correctly, freedoms you personally want count as "freedom," and ones you don't really care about don't count for anything. It's excellent to know what you want, and to be in the right place to get it -- more power to anyone who does the same -- but it still seems a tad inaccurate to then make the claim that someone else doing the same thing "has no freedom."
|
My only issue with this is even if you are the father you do not have any input at all.Actually, Kirth, David identified himself as pro-choice but hopes they choose life. I agree with that position wholeheartedly. But both of us also recognise that, ultimately, it's not our decision (unless we're the farther, then I'd expect to have some input).In the scenario you outlined, I would have no problem with abortion being avalible for her, with parental or some other guardian's consent.So you and I agree all the way down the line, point-for-point it seems, and yet you identify as "pro-life," and I identify as "pro-choice." It's amazing what polarizing politics will do for you!
If you're in a relationship, sure there is. You talk to your partner about the decision, and then you shut up and support her in whatever decision she makes. If you can't do that or can't talk about it then the relationship isn't going to last anyway and it's probably better you both know that sooner rather than later.
If you're not in a relationship with the mother, well, you're not in a relationship. What input would you expect in that situation? You won't be helping her through the pregnancy and birth, you won't be supporting her afterwards, why should you be involved in the decision because your sperm got lucky?
EDIT: To make it clear, just in case, I'm referring to the general 'you' rather than to Crimson Jester in particular.
|
|
I think it comes down to most of us not considering the "things they can do that we can't" necessary to "freedom" - perhaps nice options, but not necessary - while the "things we can do that they can't" are the stuff we would never consider ourselves free without.Or vice-versa, for them? If I understand this correctly, freedoms you personally want count as "freedom," and ones you don't really care about don't count for anything. It's excellent to know what you want, and to be in the right place to get it -- more power to anyone who does the same -- but it still seems a tad inaccurate to claim that someone else doing the same thing "has no freedom."
Definitely vice versa. I don't miss not being able to own a gun in the slightest, but I'd definitely miss the NHS, bureaucratic and inefficient as it is.
I think it comes down to most of us not considering the "things they can do that we can't" necessary to "freedom" - perhaps nice options, but not necessary - while the "things we can do that they can't" are the stuff we would never consider ourselves free without.Or vice-versa, for them? If I understand this correctly, freedoms you personally want count as "freedom," and ones you don't really care about don't count for anything. It's excellent to know what you want, and to be in the right place to get it -- more power to anyone who does the same -- but it still seems a tad inaccurate to then make the claim that someone else doing the same thing "has no freedom."
That pretty much is it. Paul used the example of guns, so we'll go with that; I would not consider it free at all if I had to live in an area like the UK where guns are prohibited, but for him it doesn't bother him a bit. Conversely he says he couldn't do without the British healthcare system (I assume that's what NHS stands for, correct me if I'm wrong), while I'm not only happy to live without it but actively opposed to any of that sort of thing.
It really does come down to a difference of opinions, greatly shaped by the society we've grown up and lived in. I have no doubts that if I'd been born and raised in Britain my opinions would be vastly farther to the left; heck I've often surmised how different I'd have been if I'd been born in the family next door, much less one state or one country over.
It really does come down to a difference of opinions.
I agree 100% -- everyone should look at the options, decide which ones they can or aren't willing to live without, and make their choice of residence accordingly, if for some reason they feel they're getting a bad deal despite their upbringing.
A lot of people I know, though, badly confuse "fact" with "opinion." They walk around saying things like "Europeans must wish we'd take them over, because they have no freedom there," and I say "WTF are you talking about, man?" And they say, "Well, they're socialists, which means they have no freedom. If we cared about them we'd invade and depose their communist overlords and give them freedom."
|
|
I think it comes down to most of us not considering the "things they can do that we can't" necessary to "freedom" - perhaps nice options, but not necessary - while the "things we can do that they can't" are the stuff we would never consider ourselves free without.Or vice-versa, for them? If I understand this correctly, freedoms you personally want count as "freedom," and ones you don't really care about don't count for anything. It's excellent to know what you want, and to be in the right place to get it -- more power to anyone who does the same -- but it still seems a tad inaccurate to then make the claim that someone else doing the same thing "has no freedom."That pretty much is it. Paul used the example of guns, so we'll go with that; I would not consider it free at all if I had to live in an area like the UK where guns are prohibited, but for him it doesn't bother him a bit. Conversely he says he couldn't do without the British healthcare system (I assume that's what NHS stands for, correct me if I'm wrong), while I'm not only happy to live without it but actively opposed to any of that sort of thing.
It really does come down to a difference of opinions, greatly shaped by the society we've grown up and lived in. I have no doubts that if I'd been born and raised in Britain my opinions would be vastly farther to the left; heck I've often surmised how different I'd have been if I'd been born in the family next door, much less one state or one country over.
It does. And that is what the NHS is (National Health Service). But you're right. It's as unfathomable to me why America doesn't have (or want in many cases) such a system as it probably is to you why the UK is quite content with its gun laws. We've both grown up with things that way and it's so obviously the right way we don't fully get why other people disagree.
A lot of people ... walk around saying things like "Europeans must wish we'd take them over, because they have no freedom there," and I say "WTF are you talking about, man?"
Wow. I've never heard that one.
We've both grown up with things that way and it's so obviously the right way we don't fully get why other people disagree.
This is my main problem with debates, actually, and one of the reasons I could never be on a debate team - I cannot argue a position I don't understand and most of the time I don't understand positions I'm opposed to, in some cases cannot even fathom why someone would support such a position.
I suspect that's the way it is with a good majority of people, and I'm just one of the rare few who bothers to admit it. I don't get left-wing supporters (for example, insert any other group of choice here), I simply do not comprehend why they believe the things they do, but at least I admit it.
|
|
A lot of people ... walk around saying things like "Europeans must wish we'd take them over, because they have no freedom there," and I say "WTF are you talking about, man?"Wow. I've never heard that one.
I have. Only from someone I already considered on the b~&$$++ insane end of American politics, but I have heard it. I was too busy laughing to reply at the time.
most of the time I don't understand positions I'm opposed to, in some cases cannot even fathom why someone would support such a position. I suspect that's the way it is with a good majority of people, and I'm just one of the rare few who bothers to admit it. I don't get left-wing supporters (for example, insert any other group of choice here), I simply do not comprehend why they believe the things they do, but at least I admit it.
I don't get it.
Let's take something very polarizing, like abortion. I understand why a person would value a potential future baby more than the quality of life for the mother. Most people will do anything for their kids. Surely it's just to foster that attitude even in people who are foolish or irresponsible -- I'd even say most especially in that case. Breaking it down that way, it's very easy to see where the "no exceptions, ever" stance would emerge. Now, personally, I feel that quality of life should count for something, as well as simply quantity, but I have no trouble at all understanding why someone would disagree.
|
|
My only issue with this is even if you are the father you do not have any input at all.Actually, Kirth, David identified himself as pro-choice but hopes they choose life. I agree with that position wholeheartedly. But both of us also recognise that, ultimately, it's not our decision (unless we're the farther, then I'd expect to have some input).In the scenario you outlined, I would have no problem with abortion being avalible for her, with parental or some other guardian's consent.So you and I agree all the way down the line, point-for-point it seems, and yet you identify as "pro-life," and I identify as "pro-choice." It's amazing what polarizing politics will do for you!If you're in a relationship, sure there is. You talk to your partner about the decision, and then you shut up and support her in whatever decision she makes. If you can't do that or can't talk about it then the relationship isn't going to last anyway and it's probably better you both know that sooner rather than later.
If you're not in a relationship with the mother, well, you're not in a relationship. What input would you expect in that situation? You won't be helping her through the pregnancy and birth, you won't be supporting her afterwards, why should you be involved in the decision because your sperm got lucky?
EDIT: To make it clear, just in case, I'm referring to the general 'you' rather than to Crimson Jester in particular.
Because luck has nothing to do with it. The decision to have sex does. If I have the right to help make a decision I should be responsible for my actions. I happen to feel that not taking responsibility for our actions is one of the things that is killing this country.
As far as having a relationship. Well you should have one before you sleep with someone. It prevents all sorts of nasty things such as random diseases and “accidental” pregnancies.
I happen to feel that not taking responsibility for our actions is one of the things that is killing this country.
Is that maybe a bit dramatic? Like if I say "I happen to feel like lack of basic courtesy is one of the things that is killing this country. Like, if you ask someone to email you something, and then refusing to acknowledge when they ask if you've received it..."
most of the time I don't understand positions I'm opposed to, in some cases cannot even fathom why someone would support such a position. I suspect that's the way it is with a good majority of people, and I'm just one of the rare few who bothers to admit it. I don't get left-wing supporters (for example, insert any other group of choice here), I simply do not comprehend why they believe the things they do, but at least I admit it.I don't get it.
Let's take something very polarizing, like abortion. I understand why a person would value a potential future baby more than the quality of life for the mother. Breaking it down that way, it's very easy to see where the "no exceptions, ever" stance would emerge. Now, personally, I feel that quality of life should count for something, as well as simply quantity, but I have no trouble at all understanding why someone would disagree.
I think that is one problem is that you can respect and understand why someone holds the positions they have, but few wish to.
I understand why some feel that abortion is morally equal to baby murder. I personally don't, though I feel the practice is barbaric, especially when there are so many couples looking to adopt children. However, my touchstone in politics is personal responsibility. If a woman elects to have an abortion, that is her right. The baby cannot live without her, thus it falls under her suzerainty until such time as it is delivered. There are all sorts of complex corner cases (late-term abortions/abortion pills/morning-after pills/etc.etc.) but for the most part if a woman is unwilling to carry a fetus to term, then that baby will most likely have a horrible life anyway if she was forced to bring it to term.
I don't judge any of my political stances on any nebulous religion decree, abortion included. Since I am not conventionally religious, I don't have to filter my philosopy through the Abrahamic sieve. It is my (personal) belief that souls pass through cycles of reincarnation, so no 'life' is 'lost' when a fetus is aborted. Perhaps legions of genocidal leaders are sentenced to experiencing a string of late-term abortions as punishment for their bad karma. I don't know. NO ONE DOES.
No matter what my stance is, I understand why so many attempt to stop them. I just don't feel that way. I don't know if my stance is 'correct', but I do know that reproductive freedom has done more for women's conditions than any other thing I can think of. I would never vilify anyone who holds those views, any more than I would vilify the proponents of partial-birth abortions.
I am more than willing to debate even hot-button issues, but when I slam the wall of partisanship, that's when I bail. Life's too short to be insulted by small-minded Internet posters who dump on anyone who holds a different view than they do.
... I have no trouble at all understanding why someone would disagree.
I suppose that makes you better in this category than me, or at least more qualified. Most of the time when I hear people expound on things I disagree with my brain is reeling going "Huh? How in HECK did you come to THAT conclusion!?"
I happen to feel that not taking responsibility for our actions is one of the things that is killing this country.I happen to feel like lack of basic courtesy is one of the things that is killing this country.
I'd say you're both right.
|
|
My only issue with this is even if you are the father you do not have any input at all.Actually, Kirth, David identified himself as pro-choice but hopes they choose life. I agree with that position wholeheartedly. But both of us also recognise that, ultimately, it's not our decision (unless we're the farther, then I'd expect to have some input).In the scenario you outlined, I would have no problem with abortion being avalible for her, with parental or some other guardian's consent.So you and I agree all the way down the line, point-for-point it seems, and yet you identify as "pro-life," and I identify as "pro-choice." It's amazing what polarizing politics will do for you!If you're in a relationship, sure there is. You talk to your partner about the decision, and then you shut up and support her in whatever decision she makes. If you can't do that or can't talk about it then the relationship isn't going to last anyway and it's probably better you both know that sooner rather than later.
If you're not in a relationship with the mother, well, you're not in a relationship. What input would you expect in that situation? You won't be helping her through the pregnancy and birth, you won't be supporting her afterwards, why should you be involved in the decision because your sperm got lucky?
EDIT: To make it clear, just in case, I'm referring to the general 'you' rather than to Crimson Jester in particular.
Because luck has nothing to do with it. The decision to have sex does. If I have the right to help make a decision I should be responsible for my actions. I happen to feel that not taking responsibility for our actions is one of the things that is killing this country.
As far as having a relationship. Well you should have one before you sleep with someone. It prevents all sorts of nasty things such as random diseases and “accidental”...
EDIT: to make clear I also am using general terms not directly to Paul Watson
I suppose that makes you better in this category than me, or at least more qualified. Most of the time when I hear people expound on things I disagree with my brain is reeling going "Huh? How in HECK did you come to THAT conclusion!?"
No different than anything else in this life -- exposure and practice are the main things. If you only surround yourself with and listen to people with views similar to your own, you never get a feel for opposing ones. Coming to Texas from Europe, with stops in NY, MD, VA, and SC, I've come up against a lot of viewpoints that at first were totally incomprehensible. For example, my best friend in Virginia -- a Lt Cmdr, USN, Ret. -- thought he was a Confederate officer. Spent a lot of time talking to him and eventually figured out where he was coming from. I still didn't agree with him, but it at least it made sense from his point of view.
I still find a lot of points of view incomprehensible -- a lot of the attitudes in Africa and the Middle East seem like gibberish to me -- but I assume that's because I haven't spent enough time with someone willing to talk about why they have them.
|
|
My only issue with this is even if you are the father you do not have any input at all.Actually, Kirth, David identified himself as pro-choice but hopes they choose life. I agree with that position wholeheartedly. But both of us also recognise that, ultimately, it's not our decision (unless we're the farther, then I'd expect to have some input).In the scenario you outlined, I would have no problem with abortion being avalible for her, with parental or some other guardian's consent.So you and I agree all the way down the line, point-for-point it seems, and yet you identify as "pro-life," and I identify as "pro-choice." It's amazing what polarizing politics will do for you!If you're in a relationship, sure there is. You talk to your partner about the decision, and then you shut up and support her in whatever decision she makes. If you can't do that or can't talk about it then the relationship isn't going to last anyway and it's probably better you both know that sooner rather than later.
If you're not in a relationship with the mother, well, you're not in a relationship. What input would you expect in that situation? You won't be helping her through the pregnancy and birth, you won't be supporting her afterwards, why should you be involved in the decision because your sperm got lucky?
EDIT: To make it clear, just in case, I'm referring to the general 'you' rather than to Crimson Jester in particular.
Because luck has nothing to do with it. The decision to have sex does. If I have the right to help make a decision I should be responsible for my actions. I happen to feel that not taking responsibility for our actions is one of the things that is killing this country.
As far as having a relationship. Well you should have one before you sleep with someone. It prevents all sorts of nasty things such as random diseases and “accidental” pregnancies.
Worryingly, I think we're agreeing.
If you're in a relationship, and in my opinion you should be in a relationship if you're sleeping with someone (For a liberal, I'm quite conservative on when people should be f***ing each other's brains out, even if I don't care soe much how or who with.) then the partner should have input as it will drastically affect both parties, but the ultimate decision goes to the one most affected. It works the other way, too. A wife or girlfriend can have input into whether you should get a vasectomy, but in the end, it has to be your decision.
|
|
...My only issue with this is even if you are the father you do not have any input at all.Actually, Kirth, David identified himself as pro-choice but hopes they choose life. I agree with that position wholeheartedly. But both of us also recognise that, ultimately, it's not our decision (unless we're the farther, then I'd expect to have some input).In the scenario you outlined, I would have no problem with abortion being avalible for her, with parental or some other guardian's consent.So you and I agree all the way down the line, point-for-point it seems, and yet you identify as "pro-life," and I identify as "pro-choice." It's amazing what polarizing politics will do for you!If you're in a relationship, sure there is. You talk to your partner about the decision, and then you shut up and support her in whatever decision she makes. If you can't do that or can't talk about it then the relationship isn't going to last anyway and it's probably better you both know that sooner rather than later.
If you're not in a relationship with the mother, well, you're not in a relationship. What input would you expect in that situation? You won't be helping her through the pregnancy and birth, you won't be supporting her afterwards, why should you be involved in the decision because your sperm got lucky?
EDIT: To make it clear, just in case, I'm referring to the general 'you' rather than to Crimson Jester in particular.
Because luck has nothing to do with it. The decision to have sex does. If I have the right to help make a decision I should be responsible for my actions. I happen to feel that not taking responsibility for our actions is one of the things that is killing this country.
As far as having a relationship. Well you should have one before you sleep with someone. It prevents all sorts of nasty things such as random
For the most part I agree.
I have to add. While I do believe in a abstenenance first policy. Lets get real kids are going to do stupid things and shoudl be taught now rather then later. At home preferabel but lets face it the state has a vested intrest in keeping the population down and should teach basic education to children since some parents couldnt care less. Some parents wouldnt know what or how to say it.
|
|
I happen to feel that not taking responsibility for our actions is one of the things that is killing this country.Is that maybe a bit dramatic? Like if I say "I happen to feel like lack of basic courtesy is one of the things that is killing this country. Like, if you ask someone to email you something, and then refusing to acknowledge when they ask if you've received it..."
Yes I can see that. Of course since I am at work and unabel to recieve emails yet and work a 10 hour day and am several hours from getting off of work........
:)
My only issue with this is even if you are the father you do not have any input at all.Actually, Kirth, David identified himself as pro-choice but hopes they choose life. I agree with that position wholeheartedly. But both of us also recognise that, ultimately, it's not our decision (unless we're the farther, then I'd expect to have some input).In the scenario you outlined, I would have no problem with abortion being avalible for her, with parental or some other guardian's consent.So you and I agree all the way down the line, point-for-point it seems, and yet you identify as "pro-life," and I identify as "pro-choice." It's amazing what polarizing politics will do for you!If you're in a relationship, sure there is. You talk to your partner about the decision, and then you shut up and support her in whatever decision she makes. If you can't do that or can't talk about it then the relationship isn't going to last anyway and it's probably better you both know that sooner rather than later.
If you're not in a relationship with the mother, well, you're not in a relationship. What input would you expect in that situation? You won't be helping her through the pregnancy and birth, you won't be supporting her afterwards, why should you be involved in the decision because your sperm got lucky?
EDIT: To make it clear, just in case, I'm referring to the general 'you' rather than to Crimson Jester in particular.
So in fact, men don't really have any meaningful input, or perhaps a better way to say it is, any meaningful reproductive freedom.
If a woman gets pregnant, she can choose to carry the child to term and raise it. In this case the biological father* is legally responsible for providing financial support for the child until it is 18 (or older if it goes to college), this is true irregardless of the desire of the father to have a child or not.
The woman could have the child and put it up for adoption, the father could possibly sue for custody in that case, assuming he is made aware of it. If later he becomes aware of the child, he will have to fight in court to gain custody from the adoptive parents, and has no guarantee of success. As the courts may decide it is in the child's "best interest" to stay with the adoptive parents than the biological father.
The woman could choose to have an abortion, and the father could lose a chance, perhaps the only chance, to have a child without any compensation for the "wrongful death" of their child (I say wrongful death instead of murder, because murder is a criminal transgression, while wrongful death is more civil).
Now, if we truly wanted to try to balance the reproductive freedoms of the sexes, at the very least we should put in to effect an option for a father to have a "statuory abortion", that is he can wave all rights and responsibilities to any child that the mother choose to carry to term that he does not wish to raise (within a reasonable time of when he becomes legally aware of the pregnancy/child).
*Some men that are not the biological father are still require to provide financial support for children that are not theirs because their name is on the birth certificate. This most occurs, when a couple is married and the mother has an affair and gets pregnant without informing her husband. He (and the courts) then assumes the child is his. Later when he finds out the child is not, he is still financially responsible for the child, even if he can prove the child is not his (DNA test for example).
|
|
My only issue with this is even if you are the father you do not have any input at all.Actually, Kirth, David identified himself as pro-choice but hopes they choose life. I agree with that position wholeheartedly. But both of us also recognise that, ultimately, it's not our decision (unless we're the farther, then I'd expect to have some input).In the scenario you outlined, I would have no problem with abortion being avalible for her, with parental or some other guardian's consent.So you and I agree all the way down the line, point-for-point it seems, and yet you identify as "pro-life," and I identify as "pro-choice." It's amazing what polarizing politics will do for you!If you're in a relationship, sure there is. You talk to your partner about the decision, and then you shut up and support her in whatever decision she makes. If you can't do that or can't talk about it then the relationship isn't going to last anyway and it's probably better you both know that sooner rather than later.
If you're not in a relationship with the mother, well, you're not in a relationship. What input would you expect in that situation? You won't be helping her through the pregnancy and birth, you won't be supporting her afterwards, why should you be involved in the decision because your sperm got lucky?
EDIT: To make it clear, just in case, I'm referring to the general 'you' rather than to Crimson Jester in particular.
So in fact, men don't really have any meaningful input, or perhaps a better way to say it is, any meaningful reproductive freedom.
If a woman gets pregnant, she can choose to carry the child to term and raise it. In this case the biological father* is legally responsible for providing financial support for the child until it is 18 (or older if it goes to college), this is true irregardless of the desire of the father to have a child or...
Which is why I am pro responsibility and not really Pro Choice.
So leaving behind the issue of abortion for a moment, let us address an issue that affects everyone who posts opinions, no matter what stripe, on a messageboard forum: How do you get your point across clearly?
It seems the one roadblock to meaningful debate is the use of 'hot button' words to 'punch up' an argument. Once these words get trotted out the debate/discussion usually starts going downhill into flaming ruin.
Quick list:
- Fail
- rehash
- XX fallacy (or shorthand quoting some obscure Internet meme in general)
- evil
- godless
- tree hugger
- fascist
- communist
- racist
- moron
- sexist
- cultist
- stupid
- thickheaded
- Bushie
- Obamit e
Any others that can be added? I'm thinking of words that can be taken as points of arguments and insults at the same time, even if the insulting isn't intended.
|
|
So leaving behind the issue of abortion for a moment, let us address an issue that affects everyone who posts opinions, no matter what stripe, on a messageboard forum: How do you get your point across clearly?
It seems the one roadblock to meaningful debate is the use of 'hot button' words to 'punch up' an argument. Once these words get trotted out the debate/discussion usually starts going downhill into flaming ruin.
Quick list:
- Fail
- rehash
- XX fallacy (or shorthand quoting some obscure Internet meme in general)
- evil
- godless
- tree hugger
- fascist
- communist
- racist
- moron
- sexist
- cultist
- stupid
- thickheaded
- Bushie
- Obamit e
Any others that can be added? I'm thinking of words that can be taken as points of arguments and insults at the same time, even if the insulting isn't intended.
Anything ending in -ist or -ism should be avoided in general. Sarcasm also doesn't work, especially on the Internet.
Stubborn is another good one to avoid.
Mentioning God or religion as a justification/accusation is also usually a bad idea. It tends to take the argument down the familiar religion/atheism line and completely derail it.
Sarcasm. And irony too. Happens to be my favorite mode of <trying> to be funny.
Doesn't work so well online.
Sarcasm. And irony too. Happens to be my favorite mode of <trying> to be funny.
Doesn't work so well online.
Yeah. We really need an emoticon for sarcasm. A good one, not ":P"
I think there are certain threads of thought that also lead to acrimonius debate. No matter what is on the deabate docket, some people always have to make it personal. Perhaps they feel marginalized by some other faction, perhaps it's just how they justify their own convictions, I'm not sure. If we could try to avoid the obvious landmines we might actually have some decent debates:
So, with this in mind, here's some themes which won't win you friends in debate:
- Using religion/atheism to justify your arguments
- Demonizing the other side, politically, especially the leaders of said political sides
- Phrasing your arguments in a pedantic mocking tone (this of course is subjective and one of the pitfalls of typing debates)
- Insulting/belittling someone's country/religion/philosophy/ethnicity/race/game preference
- Insisting that your philosophy/country/political party/religion/game system is the only 'logical' way to go or is the 'best'.
- Making leaps of reasoning that if someone thinks one way about a subject they can be shoehorned into a certain mold ( I call this the Conservative/Liberal Dilemma).
|
|
I think there are certain threads of thought that also lead to acrimonius debate. No matter what is on the deabate docket, some people always have to make it personal. Perhaps they feel marginalized by some other faction, perhaps it's just how they justify their own convictions, I'm not sure. If we could try to avoid the obvious landmines we might actually have some decent debates:
So, with this in mind, here's some themes which won't win you friends in debate:
- Using religion/atheism to justify your arguments
- Demonizing the other side, politically, especially the leaders of said political sides
- Phrasing your arguments in a pedantic mocking tone (this of course is subjective and one of the pitfalls of typing debates)
- Insulting/belittling someone's country/religion/philosophy/ethnicity/race/game preference
- Insisting that your philosophy/country/political party/religion/game system is the only 'logical' way to go or is the 'best'.
- Making leaps of reasoning that if someone thinks one way about a subject they can be shoehorned into a certain mold ( I call this the Conservative/Liberal Dilemma).
Oh, sure, take all the fun out of things, why don't you? ;-)
Oh, sure, take all the fun out of things, why don't you? ;-)
Well, I have fun debating issues. I don't have fun when I feel insulted. I am a testy and curmudgeony monkey :P
Case in point: I do not like President Obama's political platform or a lot of the things he has done since gaining office. Despite that, I would never call him a 'monster' or say that 'he is ruining the country'. I didn't like Bush either, but I would never call him an 'idiot' or say something like 'anyone who voted for him must have the IQ of an onion.' They both have their agendas, and as they won office it is their right to persue them, no matter what I think. I can just point out where I disagree with them in a reasoned manner and let it go at that.
Insults shut down debate, they don't enhance it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think there are certain threads of thought that also lead to acrimonius debate. ...:
So, with this in mind, here's some themes which won't win you friends in debate:
- Using religion/atheism to justify your arguments...
Patrick, I see where you're coming from on this, but --while I like the rest of your list-- I'm going to have to disagree here.
I base some of my social and political positions on my spiritual and religious background. Indeed, if religion didn't affect my social and political views, I wouldn't think much of that religious upbringing.
I think it's best to get that bias, if you will, out in the open. "I'm against the death penalty. Why? Because I'm Catholic and hold to the sanctity of life, even in cases like this." By laying out the reasons explicitly, I let everybody know that (1) you're not going to sway me with arguments about social catharsis or the expense of life imprisonment, and (2) that I don't expect you to necessarily agree with me, unless you're also Catholic, in which case my argument to you is going to look very different than other people might expect.
I think that making religious underpinnings of arguments explicit serves to decrease tension.
Patrick, I see where you're coming from on this, but --while I like the rest of your list-- I'm going to have to disagree here.
I base some of my social and political positions on my spiritual and religious background. Indeed, if religion didn't affect my social and political views, I wouldn't think much of that religious upbringing.
I think it's best to get that bias, if you will, out in the open. "I'm against the death penalty. Why? Because I'm Catholic and hold to the sanctity of life, even in cases like this." By laying out the reasons explicitly, I let everybody know that (1) you're not going to sway me with arguments about social catharsis or the expense of life imprisonment, and (2) that I don't expect you to necessarily agree with me, unless you're also Catholic, in which case my argument to you is going to look very different than other people might expect.
I think that making religious underpinnings of arguments explicit serves to decrease tension.
OK I conceed that point Chris. I guess what I was going for here isn't a 'I think this way because,' type of ban. More of a 'If you believe/don't believe in 'X' you are wrong/stupid/misguided/bound for Hell/a cultist.
Knowing what someone's values are and their reasoning behind them is always good in a debate as long as you recognize that your fellow debaters might see things differently. I'm trying to delineate what 'bad memes' cause debates to fall off the rails.
I'd like to add one, if I may: argument of omniscience stemming from ignorance. This one is HARD not to fall into sometimes.
Three examples:
Another one is when people make absolute claims about what the book of Leviticus says, for example, without understanding any of the historical context, or even having read it. This cuts both ways as well. "Christians can't eat shellfish!" is both untrue and grounded in ignorance of how the Bible and the covenants with God described in it work. "I'm right about abortion because of Verse XX-XX" is equally vapid, because it fails to account for the fact that not everyone accepts the absolute authority of the Bible, and especially of your personal interpretation of it. "I believe X because of XX-XX" is a far more useful statement.
I won't get started on evolution/creation again, save to point out that (a) evolution is NOT in any way "proof" of atheism or anything of the sort, and that an old earth is not a snub on God; and (b) making absolute "factual" statements about the fossil record, radiometric dating, etc. -- no matter what side of the debate -- that are based on one's ignorance of those things isn't helpful.
In summary, an argument does not appear stronger by claiming absolute certainty -- especially if that certainty is rooted in ignorance. Replacing statements like "obviously" with things like "if I understand this correctly" is a HUGE stride towards adding legitimacy to one's points.
So leaving behind the issue of abortion for a moment, let us address an issue that affects everyone who posts opinions, no matter what stripe, on a messageboard forum: How do you get your point across clearly?
It seems the one roadblock to meaningful debate is the use of 'hot button' words to 'punch up' an argument. Once these words get trotted out the debate/discussion usually starts going downhill into flaming ruin.
Quick list:
- Fail
- rehash
- XX fallacy (or shorthand quoting some obscure Internet meme in general)
- evil
- godless
- tree hugger
- fascist
- communist
- racist
- moron
- sexist
- cultist
- stupid
- thickheaded
- Bushie
- Obamit e
Any others that can be added? I'm thinking of words that can be taken as points of arguments and insults at the same time, even if the insulting isn't intended.
bigot
It is similar to some words above such as sexist and racist but is often used in the same context and for the same reason, IMO.
|
Patrick, I see where you're coming from on this, but --while I like the rest of your list-- I'm going to have to disagree here.
I base some of my social and political positions on my spiritual and religious background. Indeed, if religion didn't affect my social and political views, I wouldn't think much of that religious upbringing.
I think it's best to get that bias, if you will, out in the open. "I'm against the death penalty. Why? Because I'm Catholic and hold to the sanctity of life, even in cases like this." By laying out the reasons explicitly, I let everybody know that (1) you're not going to sway me with arguments about social catharsis or the expense of life imprisonment, and (2) that I don't expect you to necessarily agree with me, unless you're also Catholic, in which case my argument to you is going to look very different than other people might expect.
I think that making religious underpinnings of arguments explicit serves to decrease tension.
OK I conceed that point Chris. I guess what I was going for here isn't a 'I think this way because,' type of ban. More of a 'If you believe/don't believe in 'X' you are wrong/stupid/misguided/bound for Hell/a cultist.
I agree. Oneof the first rulsof debat that I taught my students is that you always frame your argument from a "this is where I stand" position rather than a "this is where you stand" position. I do think it is okay to say "I see you saying this and this and doing this, is it safe to assume that you are coming from this position," because then you are asking the person to explain their position rather than telling them what there position is. The biggest thing I hate in debates however is when someone says, "I believe X" only to have one or more persons tell them "You say you are Republican/conservative/Democrat/liberal/etc. so you don't really believe that," or "it's safe to say you believe that, but do you really?" I take the position that, unless someone has proof that the person in question doesn't actually believe what they say, thn I accept their statement of belief at face value.
|
|
So leaving behind the issue of abortion for a moment, let us address an issue that affects everyone who posts opinions, no matter what stripe, on a messageboard forum: How do you get your point across clearly?
It seems the one roadblock to meaningful debate is the use of 'hot button' words to 'punch up' an argument. Once these words get trotted out the debate/discussion usually starts going downhill into flaming ruin.
Quick list:
- Fail
- rehash
- XX fallacy (or shorthand quoting some obscure Internet meme in general)
- evil
- godless
- tree hugger
- fascist
- communist
- racist
- moron
- sexist
- cultist
- stupid
- thickheaded
- Bushie
- Obamit e
Any others that can be added? I'm thinking of words that can be taken as points of arguments and insults at the same time, even if the insulting isn't intended.
bigot
It is similar to some words above such as sexist and racist but is often used in the same context and for the same reason, IMO.
Homophobe
Or almost any othr word that is intended to mrginalize and delegitamize the other potser and prevgent anyonefrom taking their opinion seriouly.|
|
I agree. Oneof the first rulsof debat that I taught my students is that you always frame your argument from a "this is where I stand" position rather than a "this is where you stand" position. I do think it is okay to say "I see you saying this and this and doing this, is it safe to assume that you are coming from this position," because then you are asking the person to explain their position rather than telling them what there position is. The biggest thing I hate in debates however is when someone says, "I believe X" only to have one or more persons tell them "You say you are Republican/conservative/Democrat/liberal/etc. so you don't really believe that," or "it's safe to say you believe that, but do you really?" I take the position that, unless someone has proof that the person in question doesn't actually believe what they say, thn I accept their statement of belief at face value.
Patrick, I see where you're coming from on this, but --while I like the rest of your list-- I'm going to have to disagree here.
I base some of my social and political positions on my spiritual and religious background. Indeed, if religion didn't affect my social and political views, I wouldn't think much of that religious upbringing.
I think it's best to get that bias, if you will, out in the open. "I'm against the death penalty. Why? Because I'm Catholic and hold to the sanctity of life, even in cases like this." By laying out the reasons explicitly, I let everybody know that (1) you're not going to sway me with arguments about social catharsis or the expense of life imprisonment, and (2) that I don't expect you to necessarily agree with me, unless you're also Catholic, in which case my argument to you is going to look very different than other people might expect.
I think that making religious underpinnings of arguments explicit serves to decrease tension.
OK I conceed that point Chris. I guess what I was going for here isn't a 'I think this way because,' type of ban. More of a 'If you believe/don't believe in 'X' you are wrong/stupid/misguided/bound for Hell/a cultist.
David,
What kind of debates have you been in where this wasn't the assumption?? I might make a joking comment about not being a proper Republican/Democrat but that's as far as it would go.Also, I have to dissent with respect to Chris' position. If you hold a position because of your religious views, while it is helpful to know, it effectively closes the debate. There's no point putting forward any views on the opposing side because, as you say, you'll never change your position, and there's no point you putting forward arguments because the other person obviously doesn't share your interpretation of the religion and that's what is central to your position. This doesn't take into account the fact that some people will take a criticism of their stance as a direct criticism of their beliefs and be terribly offended by it. I'm not saying you're wrong to hold those views, but it's something that I think should be avoided in debate for the reasons I gave.
The kind where people say, "well you're an American conservative, so you don't really believe that."David,
What kind of debates have you been in where this wasn't the assumption?? I might make a joking comment about not being a proper Republican/Democrat but that's as far as it would go.
+1
Too many times we place people into neat little containers and react to their comments thru the little peephole in said container. Hence the framework that all conservatives are the same and all liberals are too. We often forget/ignore the variations amongst individuals, because that makes the conversation more complex.