Observation from a sleepy gosling

[minsue]

Forgive me if I don't make sense. I'm drugged on allergy meds six ways from sunday here.

I've been trying to stay out of the various political-type threads because I've found there are few topics I can discuss civilly. It all means too much to me. I have caught myself reading through parts of them, though, and there is one thing that always sticks out like a sore thumb to me that I'd never noticed before: All of the arguments on either side are unbelievably colored by the assumptions being made about the person one is arguing with.

Yes, that should be obvious, I know. I'd just never realized before how much assumptions alter a debate or discussion. It just plain fascinates the hell out of me.

Of course, that could be the allergy drugs that find it all so interesting and not me....

Any observations, mockery, or threadjacks welcome. Or just let me sink to dead thread land. Either way. I'm just babbling to babble, methinks.

 

[English Lady]

Firstly*hugs* Minsue and secondly yes

I agree, I don't often jump in on the debate type threads, but i do read through most of them, or parts of them and I forevernotivce people completely ignoring the persons point to argue out what they expect the other person to say or they continue with their point even if noone is really taking much note of it *L*

I guess it's because these things evoke folks emotions and that colours peoples replies

 

[carsonshepherd]

You know, that's why I stay out of all the debate/pol threads... I have enough people disagreeing with me on principle, just because of who I am and the life I live, in real life. I don't need it here. Also, I'm too lazy to make a well-thought-out and well-supported argument, you know? Screw that.

 

[minsue]

Firstly*hugs* Minsue and secondly yes

I agree, I don't often jump in on the debate type threads, but i do read through most of them, or parts of them and I forevernotivce people completely ignoring the persons point to argue out what they expect the other person to say or they continue with their point even if noone is really taking much note of it *L*

I guess it's because these things evoke folks emotions and that colours peoples replies

Good point. I guess I'd just never noticed how much before because I was too busy arguing.

Carson, I never bothered being well-reasoned.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Good point. I guess I'd just never noticed how much before because I was too busy arguing.

Carson, I never bothered being well-reasoned.

Why bother when you can just make a lot of assumptions, eh?

Enjoy your cold medicine

 

[BlackShanglan]

... I forevernotivce people completely ignoring the persons point to argue out what they expect the other person to say ...

Ugh. My dead last least favorite. *shudder* Amicus flashbacks.

Get well soon, gosling. I'm sure that that is one topic on which we can all agree!

As for civil discussion ... I respect your position, actually, in choosing not to argue. It's well to know when one cannot be objective, and I think absolutely vital to recognize that it's best not to argue when one cannot be civil. I mourn the apparently increasingly popular perception that passionate belief trumps civility - that's it's fine to be offensive, sometimes to the point of literally screaming other people down, when one really believes in one's cause. I shan't even enter into the charming philosophical implications - that the speaker is the one true voice of reason and beleif and therefore the only one deserving to be heard - but stick with the belief that the more passionate the opinions involved, the more vital it is to control ourselves and our language and discourse. Otherwise we will end up in armed camps seething with hostility - not a situation in which a great deal of advancement or useful change is likely to occur.

Shanglan

 

[impressive]

Ugh. My dead last least favorite. *shudder* Amicus flashbacks.

Get well soon, gosling. I'm sure that that is one topic on which we can all agree!

As for civil discussion ... I respect your position, actually, in choosing not to argue. It's well to know when one cannot be objective, and I think absolutely vital to recognize that it's best not to argue when one cannot be civil. I mourn the apparently increasingly popular perception that passionate belief trumps civility - that's it's fine to be offensive, sometimes to the point of literally screaming other people down, when one really believes in one's cause. I shan't even enter into the charming philosophical implications - that the speaker is the one true voice of reason and beleif and therefore the only one deserving to be heard - but stick with the belief that the more passionate the opinions involved, the more vital it is to control ourselves and our language and discourse. Otherwise we will end up in armed camps seething with hostility - not a situation in which a great deal of advancement or useful change is likely to occur.

Shanglan

I'm pretty sure I agree, but I'm too damned tired to parse all those words.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I think it arises from the natural tendency to compare the person we are arguing against to people we have argued with before on the same topic or perhaps just in the same style.

Thus the style with which they debate (or evade debate), the word choices they use, and the arguments they use combine and mix and are compared to those who have used such tactics before and from that assumption is made. Some of it is laughable like in the Red v. Blue debates where all the worst aspects and beliefs of either Red or Blue are labeled onto a person arguing one point whether or not they really hold said beliefs. Other times it is just a spot on assessment such as amicus's stated sexism and chauvinism.

Overall debates are what they are and civil language sometimes just poorly masks the contempt each side has for each other. I always maintain its a matter of preference of whether you want honesty in a debate where the manic are revealed as manic or whether you want a battle of eel tactics where people pretend to be smart and "rational" creatures when really their anything but.

 

[cantdog]

Wowie. Not very nice then, are we? I hadn't noticed what thoroughgoing shits we all were.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Overall debates are what they are and civil language sometimes just poorly masks the contempt each side has for each other. I always maintain its a matter of preference of whether you want honesty in a debate where the manic are revealed as manic or whether you want a battle of eel tactics where people pretend to be smart and "rational" creatures when really their anything but.

I prefer expanding the options, personally.

 

[minsue]

I prefer expanding the options, personally.

Coming from a horse of indeterminate gender, that's not all that surprising.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Coming from a horse of indeterminate gender, that's not all that surprising.

Bless the gosling for a good laugh!

 

[pop_54]

Wowie. Not very nice then, are we? I hadn't noticed what thoroughgoing shits we all were.

You speak for yourself cant mate, I don't get involved in the politcal threads cos they bore the shit out of me, I'm just a total shit in real life

 

[Dar~]

Minsue go look at abs.

 

[minsue]

Minsue go look at abs.

Done.

Thank you

 

[minsue]

You speak for yourself cant mate, I don't get involved in the politcal threads cos they bore the shit out of me, I'm just a total shit in real life

If you're gonna do it, do it up right, Pops

 

[pop_54]

If you're gonna do it, do it up right, Pops

Too right darling Hey hope your alergies soon bugger off, poor Gosling, if you need anything rubbed in your chest let me know

 

[minsue]

Too right darling Hey hope your alergies soon bugger off, poor Gosling, if you need anything rubbed in your chest let me know

I've always said you were a kind and generous soul

 

[oggbashan]

I hope that I try to be objective in the political threads. I practise too much politics in real life and have done for more years than some of the AHers have been alive.

It is almost impossible to persuade someone who BELIEVES something totally opposed to your belief. The only people who can be persuaded by argument are those who have open minds on the issue. There appear to be very few of them on the political threads.

In real life, most political issues are actually non-partisan. Something needs to be done about an issue and all sides agree that something needs to be done. The only debate is about how and what should be done.

The heat comes from the issues where there are opposing views and neither is held by a majority. Trying to reach consensus then is almost impossible. Even if a decision is taken it may be reversed if the government changes. Those issues hurt, whichever side appears to win.

However, the media discussion of such issues is rarely rational and unbiased. Commentators and presenters give a slanted view and if it is discussed on TV then the issue has to be presented in very basic terms, ignoring the shades of opinion and concentrating on those things that divide, not those where compromise is possible.

Look at any one of our longer political threads. There are more words of argument there than in an hour-long TV special. Even so, the debate is usually carried on in ignorance of the totality of the case for either side of the argument because we get our views from the media's presentation of the issue, not the details that those intimately involved would have.

Elections are decided by the uncommitted. The die-hards on either side would never vote for the other party. Why do the uncommitted swing to vote one way or the other? If people knew that then forecasting an election would be easy.

What is true is that the tone of many debates just drives the uncommitted away.

Og

 

[davidwatts]

The absolute refusal of many people to even acknowledge the possibility that there may be another way of looking at a topic has made the art of exchanging viewpoints a thing of the past. Now it's all talking points and reciting your argument ad nauseum. It may come from the fact that many people now only choose to listen or read to those with whom they agree.

I've always found that I've learned a lot more from listening to those that I disagree with rather than just looking for reassurance of my own theories.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm just babbling to babble, methinks.

That's as good a reason as any, methinks.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Liked your posts, Ogg and David. Agreed.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

Liked your posts, Ogg and David. Agreed.

Well I disagree, and I want to yell adamantly about it!

 

[davidwatts]

Well I disagree, and I want to yell adamantly about it!

Bellow on, EA. Nothing better than a good old fashioned... whatever this is.

 

[yui]

This may get me stoned, but I think often people don't actually bother to read the other posts prior to responding. It seems, at times, that people walk all over each other, trying to make the exact points that have already been made, clearly and succinctly, on page one of the thread. They jump in on page 9 and act they are bringing the Truth for the very first time. I suppose it's the internet's version of people who can't hear what someone else is saying because they're so busy talking. It's kind of insulting. And a bit annoying, too.

But I'm just fluff, so feel free to gloss me.

Luck,

Yui