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.
Well, maybe not all liberals, but a vast majority of them.
Any time the talking points of the American Left are put under the microscope and attempted to be analyzed under unbiased conditions, liberal members of this board immediately jump on the attack.
Consider the thread on Nazism, where I questioned the talking point "Right wingers are Nazis!" Rather than engage in rational debate, discussing whether the Nazis really exhibited socialism (as opposed to merely giving it lip service), it quickly turned into a flame and troll fest.
Similarly, the post on the inaction of civilized countries in Kenya, rather than being about what obligation civilized nations have to prevent genocide and whether they are living up to that obligation, flames about the Iraq war sprang up.
A post on how suicide bombers can kill innocent people turned into an attack on Christianity, same with any posts about homosexuality or abortion.
Is this visceral reaction merely a consequence of the fact that more posters here are liberal than conservative (see the politics forum for evidence)? I have noticed that there are a few liberals who, while I do not necessarily agree with them, are able to articulate their positions without resorting to personal attacks and insults.
Should the "Great Debates" forum be restricted to certain posters who petition for access? Should it be open with selective banning of people who don't adhere to the "high standards" expected?
Your input is appreciated. Thank you.
My personal opinion is that universities, colleges and high schools are falling down on the job with teaching people how to effectively articulate their opinions. If you watch some of the 24 hour news programs, guest analysts don't answer the questions they're asked. They're taught to divert the question to the talking point response they want to give. You know, if they are asked "Why does X like to tango?" they'll turn it into a response about how Y likes to eat peaches, how Y's party has been forcing peaches on the American public and about how Y's party wants to raise the cost of tango dancing for people who can't afford tango lessons so Y can divert money to his pals in the peach farming industry, something X will never do. When they're done, we've heard 3 things about Y, one good thing about X unrealated to the question and nothing about why X likes to tango but they threw in the word "tango" just to make it sound like an appropriate response. Still, they are rewarded with air time, beloved by their respective parties for their skills and people seem to be impressed that they've made their points...even if the points are unrelated to the question.
I actually heard one "political analyst" suggest a political candidate not answer anything he's asked by a debate moderator and just talk about what he wants to talk about. In other words, he'll be held in higher esteem for his tactics rather than responses that fit the questions asked.
Everything seems to be about diversion. It makes me think of TV trial lawyers who also use diversionary tactics to win because they are incapable of winning on the evidence. They are also rewarded
The other thing I see a lot of in forums is name calling to stop the discussion. If you don't agree with this one, you're racist. If you don't agree with that one, you're intolerant. If you don't like what someone is saying about you, it's a smear. All of it, intentional or unintentional, is from people who like the fight but aren't knowledgeable enough to back up their position.
There's a lot of hyperbole, too. You know, it's not enough to say, for example, that you don't like red light cameras. No, it has to be compared to Nazi Germany actions.
It would be nice if the Great Debates forum was invitational based on someone's assessment of the skills of the debaters in other CD forums on a chosen debate topic.
A significant item in American culture is the idea (myth) of freedom and the importance of the individual. This notion can lead to conservatives exalting the virtue of self-reliance when in fact very few are truly self-reliant and self-made.
This statement right here is the root cuase of the overwhemling majority of the genocides and suffering in the world. When we stop putting arbitary importance on group identity (race, religon, ethnicty) and move towards seeing people as individuals, we can put a stop to alot of social friciton.
I believe an individual should be as free to do and feel how he pleases as long as it doesn't interfer with the rights of others. People are not cogs in a machine, we are unqiue and varied creatures with a myriad of views and talents. This is why Communism/Socialism is at it's core oppressive and wrong.
Liberals cannot scream at the top of their lungs like right wing nuts like OReilly, Rush and Hannity. That makes them unable to debate according to Repub terms.
Liberals cannot scream at the top of their lungs like right wing nuts like OReilly, Rush and Hannity. That makes them unable to debate according to Repub terms.
Hmmmm...Al Franken, Randi Rhoads, Jenine GaraFOOL...these people are walking hate filled libs who dont know when to ****
Hmmmm...Al Franken, Randi Rhoads, Jenine GaraFOOL...these people are walking hate filled libs who dont know when to ****
Excuse me, but you just had a thread of yours closed because it served only one purpose: to make fun of people. Please redirect your above claim where it now belongs.
My personal opinion is that universities, colleges and high schools are falling down on the job with teaching people how to effectively articulate their opinions. If you watch some of the 24 hour news programs, guest analysts don't answer the questions they're asked. They're taught to divert the question to the talking point response they want to give. You know, if they are asked "Why does X like to tango?" they'll turn it into a response about how Y likes to eat peaches, how Y's party has been forcing peaches on the American public and about how Y's party wants to raise the cost of tango dancing for people who can't afford tango lessons so Y can divert money to his pals in the peach farming industry, something X will never do. When they're done, we've heard 3 things about Y, one good thing about X unrealated to the question and nothing about why X likes to tango but they threw in the word "tango" just to make it sound like an appropriate response. Still, they are rewarded with air time, beloved by their respective parties for their skills and people seem to be impressed that they've made their points...even if the points are unrelated to the question.
I actually heard one "political analyst" suggest a political candidate not answer anything he's asked by a debate moderator and just talk about what he wants to talk about. In other words, he'll be held in higher esteem for his tactics rather than responses that fit the questions asked.
Everything seems to be about diversion. It makes me think of TV trial lawyers who also use diversionary tactics to win because they are incapable of winning on the evidence. They are also rewarded
The other thing I see a lot of in forums is name calling to stop the discussion. If you don't agree with this one, you're racist. If you don't agree with that one, you're intolerant. If you don't like what someone is saying about you, it's a smear. All of it, intentional or unintentional, is from people who like the fight but aren't knowledgeable enough to back up their position.
There's a lot of hyperbole, too. You know, it's not enough to say, for example, that you don't like red light cameras. No, it has to be compared to Nazi Germany actions.
It would be nice if the Great Debates forum was invitational based on someone's assessment of the skills of the debaters in other CD forums on a chosen debate topic.
In response to your post about diverting, I think we've all seen the queen of it lately. We all know who I'm talking about, a master. As far as the universities, I've never EVER come across any professor who could not effectively teach their subject, express that onto their student & then have their student be able to effectively go out into the real world & carry out what they were taught.
My libertarian two cents are that all opinions should free to express themselves, but personal attacks won't win any arguments they only make a fool of the user. If you disagree with someone it's always better to use facts and offer counter-arguments, the world will never agree to everything but at least the discourse will suggest a higher level of intelligence
reaffirmed by looking at the tax returns of the presidential tickets.
Who needs a disinformation media when you can simply fool yourself...
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.
