[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Good post. The problem lately is that there has been no substance. [/quote]
Maybe you should kill yourself.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Good post. The problem lately is that there has been no substance.
Maybe you should kill yourself.[/quote]
Heheh. How about we make a suicide pact? You first. I’m right behind you…
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
As long as the substance stays high, I don’t mind a little extra “edge” to the posts - largely because it is impossible to have a spirited debate without that “edge”. I’d rather err on the side of having that “edge” in order to have a better debate than to wind up sterilizing the debate too much. I’m fine with a gentlemanly debate on the merits, but I am realistic enough to know that the issues we discuss bring out the “animal spirits”, and that isn’t always a bad thing.
That said, again, the key is substance, which, to be frank, has also suffered here for some time. If all you have is vitriol for your opponent and you have nothing of substance to add, then stop wasting time.
And one last point on ad hominems - that label gets thrown around far too much and in error. If you attack a person’s argument substantively, then remark on them in an unflattering way, you may have insulted them, but you haven’t indulged in a true ad hominem. An ad hominem is when you attack someone personally in lieu of attacking their argument, not in addition to. If someone tells you you are wrong because you are a moron, then that is an ad hominem. If someone tells you you are wrong, explains why in three paragraphs, and then calls you a moron for advancing what they believe to be a dumb argument, that is a gratuitous insult.
Neither is good for debate if you are a purist, but anonymous internet forums aren’t very “pure”.
Good post. The problem lately is that there has been no substance. [/quote]
You guys who are Johnny-come-lately’s to the political forum evidently missed most of the previous elections.
There is rarely any substance during election season, and not just here in the forum.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
You sounded so miserable I was just suggesting a way out for you. heheh.
[/quote]
Sometimes civility requires a bit of tough love.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
As long as the substance stays high, I don’t mind a little extra “edge” to the posts - largely because it is impossible to have a spirited debate without that “edge”. I’d rather err on the side of having that “edge” in order to have a better debate than to wind up sterilizing the debate too much. I’m fine with a gentlemanly debate on the merits, but I am realistic enough to know that the issues we discuss bring out the “animal spirits”, and that isn’t always a bad thing.
That said, again, the key is substance, which, to be frank, has also suffered here for some time. If all you have is vitriol for your opponent and you have nothing of substance to add, then stop wasting time.
And one last point on ad hominems - that label gets thrown around far too much and in error. If you attack a person’s argument substantively, then remark on them in an unflattering way, you may have insulted them, but you haven’t indulged in a true ad hominem. An ad hominem is when you attack someone personally in lieu of attacking their argument, not in addition to. If someone tells you you are wrong because you are a moron, then that is an ad hominem. If someone tells you you are wrong, explains why in three paragraphs, and then calls you a moron for advancing what they believe to be a dumb argument, that is a gratuitous insult.
Neither is good for debate if you are a purist, but anonymous internet forums aren’t very “pure”.
Good post. The problem lately is that there has been no substance.
You guys who are Johnny-come-lately’s to the political forum evidently missed most of the previous elections.
There is rarely any substance during election season, and not just here in the forum.
[/quote]
Maybe I should kill myself for posting this.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
You sounded so miserable I was just suggesting a way out for you. heheh.
Sometimes civility requires a bit of tough love.
[/quote]
I really was kidding with that though.
I completely agree with PrCalDude. I know that flaming can be fun and satisfying, but let’s at least admit that it’s not real communication.
A lot of debates turn into flame wars on here. However, there have been exceptions. I recall some time back we debated the decision by Columbia University to allow female Muslim students the right to use a gym exclusively for themselves. Both sides were civil and made intelligent points. For me, at least, I learned a whole lot more from that exchange than from Flame wars.
[quote]makkun wrote:
I’d agree with Rainjack - I wouldn*t see this as too much of a problem. Certainly no need for a ‘cleanse’ or a PWI-Cell as it’s been suggested some time back. People feel strongly about issues, and it’s not wrong to display that as well.
From my perspective, it’s often even easier to argue with an opponent who hurls insults at you - as it makes them so much easier to make your own point much more believable.
Sometimes people overstep their boundaries when they comment on their opponents’ personal lives. E.g. I always cringed when people gave forlife moral and relationship advice in various threads - but he’s a big boy and can handle it. We’re all adults here (well, mostly), and can handle some adversity.
I’d like to see more topical diversity - and occasionally mod control by for example grouping all the Obama, anti-muslim, gay and econonmy threads into one each (perhaps even with a sticky), but that’s about my only problem.
To the OP - I on the other hand agree with what you say; people should be more polite. I always thought the best way to achieve that is leading by example.
Makkun[/quote]
Yeah…well fuck you too.
Goddamn. I really see no difference in the political forum. It’s the same way it was four years ago.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
<<< There is rarely any substance during election season, and not just here in the forum.
[/quote]
It astonishes me still that this has to be said. The one and only source of useful information about a candidate is their history. Nothing that gets said during a campaign means a %&*#$# thing.
Reagan was the last president who even approximated during his administration what was promised while he was running. Clinton promised tax cuts for the middle class at the top of his lungs in 92 even mocking Bush with “read my plan, I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for my programs” during I think the 2nd debate.
On his 28th or 29th day in office he gave his speech declaring that try as he might he just couldn’t perform his miracles without “asking more from you”.
Anybody who thinks anything of substance being discussed on the trail right now will be anything, but ancient history a year from must be an Obama supporter.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
About the only people who don’t are Makkum and Boston Barrister. Maybe Nephorm as well, but he could cuss everyone one of us out and we would never know it - and we would probably thank him when he’s finished.[/quote]
Quite true. I’m sure we’ve all been cussed out by neph at some stage and thanked him profusely for it.