Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For many years, there was a series of commercials that ran on television, especially during sporting events. It featured a debate about why folks should drink this particular brand of beer. And, pretty much, it always devolved into"
One group: Tastes great!
The other: Less filling!
One group: Tastes great!
The other: Less filling!
One group: Tastes great!
The other: Less filling!
And it went on. The trend spread to the sporting events, themselves. Sitting in the Bleachers at Fenway, one could join in or merely observe as two of the sections would go back and forth:
Section 41: Tastes great!
Section 42: Less filling!
Section 41: Tastes great!
Section 42: Less filling!
Section 41: Tastes great!
Section 42: Less filling!
And, a bit later in the game, and a bit later into their drinking, the language would undergo a subtle shift:
They would go at it with no greater anger than they'd had earlier. It's not as if any of them cared so much for the words as for the opportunity to express themselves in this way.
Unfortunately, while in those settings, it has a bit of "call and response" feel to it, on the campaign trail, the exchange between parties seems to have largely been reduced to the same level of interchange with none of the camaraderie:
McCain's team: "Obama's campaign is reckless!"
Obama's team: "McCain's campaign is pathetic!"
McCain's team: "Obama's campaign is reckless!"
Obama's team: "McCain's campaign is pathetic!"
McCain's team: "Obama's campaign is reckless!"
Obama's team: "McCain's campaign is pathetic!"
(Either side could have gone first in that - there is no blame or causality attached to the order.)
And it's little if any better in here. Whatever one side says, the other side feels obliged to return, tit for tat, whether or not it makes sense in context.
Obama Supporters: "What about McCain's health?!"
McCain Supporters: "What about Obama's health?!"
Obama Supporters: "What about McCain's health?!"
McCain Supporters: "What about Obama's health?!"
Obama Supporters: "What about McCain's health?!"
McCain Supporters: "What about Obama's health?!"
Or:
Obama Supporters: "Where was McCain born?!"
McCain Supporters: "Where was Obama born?!"
Obama Supporters: "Where was McCain born?!"
McCain Supporters: "Where was Obama born?!"
Obama Supporters: "Where was McCain born?!"
McCain Supporters: "Where was Obama born?!"
*******
It really doesn't matter what the topic is. Post a poll about Palin's religion and a companion poll appears a moment later about Biden's or Obama's.
There is far too little critical thought going into these posts and the responses to them.
Too few facts and too many kneejerk "Oh, yeah?!" responses.
Too few folks unwilling to admit the other side might have a point, for fear of showing some sort of weakness (I have to guess) by so granting.
It makes dialog harder. And it makes hoping for it out of our representatives seem more naive.
Too few folks unwilling to admit the other side might have a point, for fear of showing some sort of weakness (I have to guess) by so granting.
Reminds me of a passage from Dale Carnegie (can't remember the book)
Quote:
Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not let him save face? He didn't ask for your opinion. He didn't want it. Why argue with him? You can't win an argument, because if you lose, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior, you hurt his pride, insult his intelligence, his judgment, and his self-respect, and he'll resent your triumph. That will make him strike back, but it will never make him want to change his mind. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not let him save face? He didn't ask for your opinion. He didn't want it. Why argue with him? You can't win an argument, because if you lose, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior, you hurt his pride, insult his intelligence, his judgment, and his self-respect, and he'll resent your triumph. That will make him strike back, but it will never make him want to change his mind. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
See, now... I never got that - either end of it.
I have this annoying habit, in the middle of certain arguments of stopping, and then saying:
"You're right. Nevermind. Thanks!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
