Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Dear God,Follow

#52 Mar 10 2009 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
GwynapNud the Malevolent wrote:
If I animate Margaret to sing, do I win a prize?
Yes.

You would win a virtual kick in the tush
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#53 Mar 10 2009 at 1:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Conservatives take folding money only.


Checks preferably...


Oh. And this:

Uglysasquatch wrote:
I tend to keep my conservative views quiet because I'm not up for the gang banging I'd take for disagreeing with people here.


Who'd a thunk it?


As to why the dearth of "intelligent conservatives"? You guys as a group have labeled anyone who presents a conservative viewpoint as idiotic fundamentalists. By you own definition, anyone who espouses a conservative position can't be intelligent. We didn't change. You just changed your own definitions somewhere along the line.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Mar 10 2009 at 1:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Meh. I cited examples of conservatives who could hold an intelligent debate. 95% of 'em* who come around here are cut-rate Varrus knock-offs.


*Number made up
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Mar 10 2009 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Meh. I cited examples of conservatives who could hold an intelligent debate. 95% of 'em* who come around here are cut-rate Varrus knock-offs.


*Number made up
This.

Apart from the welcome (and timely) sojourns from ToUtem, and the lamentably departed Moebius, the right wing is poorly represented here. I could debate and argue with those guys.

With gbaji and varrus you need a debating bat and gumshield.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#56 Mar 10 2009 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Aye, Moebius was pretty good. Completely partisan but with significantly better chops than the rank & file.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Mar 10 2009 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Smiley: laugh Love the Thatcher avatar. Smiley: thumbsup
#58 Mar 10 2009 at 3:54 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Smiley: laugh Love the Thatcher avatar. Smiley: thumbsup
Yeah

Gwyn may be a ****, but she's good people
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#59 Mar 10 2009 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Nobby wrote:
Apart from the welcome (and timely) sojourns from ToUtem, and the lamentably departed Moebius, the right wing is poorly represented here.


By "poorly represented" you mean that they don't accept the premise of liberal positions, laugh at their own political positions (ie: not taking their own position seriously at all), and generally play up to the strawman assumptions you want them to.

Quote:
I could debate and argue with those guys.


Of course you can. Because they tell you that you're right, and bashfully agree that they really are supporting the evil empire by being conservatives, but then make a joke about it, so it's all ok...

Gee. Can't imagine why you'd want to debate with them. It's like you say "The death penalty is wrong!!!", and they respond "Yeah. But it helps us get rid of them darkies..." <rimshot>, and everyone laughs. That's the sort of political debate you seem to want to engage in. One in which your "side" is tacitly acknowledged to be correct, and the other guy just plays punching bag so you can feel good about yourself.

Funny how you praise Totem for not taking his conservative views very seriously, as though this is the mark of a stable and reasonable person, yet you take your positions extremely seriously. It's only *wrong* to seriously support your political views if you are a conservative apparently, and you define good conservatives as those who don't. How incredibly convenient for you...


Quote:
With gbaji and varrus you need a debating bat and gumshield.


I'd like to think there's a world of difference between me and varrus. I build my arguments from facts and logic. He kinda tosses out wild assumptions. Oddly, he's much more like a conservative version of Smash really. Not as good at tossing zingers out there, but otherwise just as loopy.


It's not supposed to be "easy" to debate politic Nobby. If your complaint with me is that I make it hard for you to just sit there high on your throne safe in the warm embrace of an assumptive "right", then I'm doing my job. I want people to challenge their assumptions. I want them to question the very beliefs they've been taught to base their entire political ideology on. I want them to challenge every single news article they read, question every single word out of a politicians mouth, and otherwise look at the world as it is, instead of as those around them want them to view it.


I realize it's much easier to just join the crowd and be silent. But for some of us politics isn't just a game to see how much fun we can have bashing people who don't agree with our "side". It's about sifting through the BS we see around us every day and trying to figure out what is real and what is a lie. And I find that usually if you are standing in a crowd repeating slogans and talking points that everyone around you is repeating, you're probably one of the people repeating the lies. You may not know it. But that's where I come in.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Mar 10 2009 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
I want people to challenge their assumptions. I want them to question the very beliefs they've been taught to base their entire political ideology on. I want them to challenge every single news article they read, question every single word out of a politicians mouth, and otherwise look at the world as it is, instead of as those around them want them to view it.
Which is fine for others but not yourself, right? You're always arguing against everyone else, but never pointing out that you yourself could be wrong. Never. If you want others to do so, you may want to try doing so yourself, in front of them.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#61 Mar 10 2009 at 4:16 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
I think gbaji is hurt, Ugly. I think he is telling us that he needs a hug from Nobby.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#62 Mar 10 2009 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Warchief Annabella wrote:
I think gbaji is hurt, Ugly. I think he is telling us that he needs a hug from Nobby.
Well, Nobby should give him one and not make him spell it out anymore than he already has.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#63 Mar 10 2009 at 4:24 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
Warchief Annabella wrote:
I think gbaji is hurt, Ugly. I think he is telling us that he needs a hug from Nobby.
Well, Nobby should give him one and not make him spell it out anymore than he already has.


Nobby is too much of a prickly pear to really reach out and give gbaji that reach around he's wanted.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#64 Mar 10 2009 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Kittens
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#65 Mar 10 2009 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
Nobby wrote:
Kittens


They certainly are fluffy, aren't they?
#66 Mar 10 2009 at 4:35 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Gbaji said :

Quote:
I want people to challenge their assumptions. I want them to question the very beliefs they've been taught to base their entire political ideology on. I want them to challenge every single news article they read, question every single word out of a politicians mouth, and otherwise look at the world as it is, instead of as those around them want them to view it.


And.

Quote:
It's about sifting through the BS we see around us every day and trying to figure out what is real and what is a lie. And I find that usually if you are standing in a crowd repeating slogans and talking points that everyone around you is repeating, you're probably one of the people repeating the lies.


Just goes to show that if you stand around a cows **** for long enough, a lump of gold will eventually fall out!

Just add a touch of empathy and a smidgeon of morality for all the peoples of the world that you tend to dismiss as 'others', and I could get to quite like you! Smiley: smile

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#67 Mar 10 2009 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Really? Because I was struck by the astounding irony.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#68 Mar 10 2009 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Samira wrote:
Really? Because I was struck by the astounding irony.



I'm feeling particularly caritative towards the oppressed today.




____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#69 Mar 10 2009 at 6:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I want people to challenge their assumptions. I want them to question the very beliefs they've been taught to base their entire political ideology on. I want them to challenge every single news article they read, question every single word out of a politicians mouth, and otherwise look at the world as it is, instead of as those around them want them to view it.
Which is fine for others but not yourself, right? You're always arguing against everyone else, but never pointing out that you yourself could be wrong. Never. If you want others to do so, you may want to try doing so yourself, in front of them.


I don't insist that others point out that they are wrong. That's kinda silly. I'm not asking for that either. I'm asking for people to assess the methodologies they use to derive their positions and *then* decide for themselves what they think is right and what they think is wrong.

It's about the process for me, not the specific answer that you end up with. And of course this can result in a wrong answer. But at least you know why the answer may be wrong. The guy who determines his position by picking a side wont even have the tools available to him to determine if he's wrong, much less why. We don't live in a perfect world. It's absurd to insist on perfect answers to everything. But we can adopt a process for arriving at answers that produces the highest rate off "right" answers.


That's what I'm about. That's why I painstakingly work my way through an argument, building it up from the smallest and simplest facts to whatever endpoint is relevant to the discussion at hand. Most people start at the end and then construct statements and arguments to defend that end point. I believe that's a flawed approach because they fail to see other possible end points. The very argument about having to "point out if you're wrong" follows from that approach. All you can do is assess your own position when you do it that way. That's because you haven't considered an alternative, and are only looking at facts and arguments that support your position. If you do it the other way around, you're just plain more likely to arrive at the correct (or most correct) answer.


Consider a question about whether apples or oranges are better for you. You could approach this in one of two ways:

1. Assume apples are better. Then research facts showing the different ways in which apples are good for you. You can then repeat those facts about how good apples are if anyone questions your starting assumption.


2. Define what makes things good or bad for you. Then assess the degree to which the good things are present and the bad things absent in both apples and oranges. Then generate a position based on that assessment.


Note, that the guy using method 1 never has to consider the positive aspects of oranges. And he doesn't even have to consider the negative aspects of apples. Remember. He's starting with an assumption that apples are better for you. All he needs to support that are facts showing the ways in which apples are good for you. Build up a mountain of "good things" about apples, and he will appear to have a strong case. But he hasn't actually compared them though, and often will resist doing so. After all, looking at oranges can only weaken his position, so why do it?


My point is that most people use method 1 most of the time. They start with an answer they believe is correct and then look for information that supports that belief and *only* information that supports it. Why would you go looking for evidence that apples aren't good for you, if you know that they are? It's much easier to just find and repeat evidence that supports your position, and just refute anything that opposes it as a rubbish. And when a large enough number of people use this method and hold to a particular belief, it becomes increasingly hard to convince them otherwise, no matter how much evidence you have. After all, you're presenting evidence that refutes what they know to be true, so you must be either lying or just plain wrong.


And in terms of political debate on this forum? I've had an awful lot of that sort of thing thrown my way. It's somewhat painful to carefully walk through a logical process just to have someone say "False". No reason why, just "false". As though by ignoring the counter-argument, it'll just go away. Of course, if you've got enough people who agree with your starting assumption, it's easy to get the crowd to support you and drown out the opposition, isn't it?

I've stated this before. You get the level of discourse that you're willing to engage in. If you want all political threads to just be a bunch of people agreeing with each other, by all means continue marginalizing and attacking anyone with a countering point of view. But if you want to actually engage in intelligent conversation, it might help to stop and consider the other person's point of view instead of dismissing it out of hand, because his conclusions are different than yours...

Edited, Mar 10th 2009 7:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Mar 10 2009 at 6:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
I tend to be conservitive on many issues, Military spending, Intel issues, etc. But I tend to have some liberal views on other issues (human rights, etc. transportation funding)

I go wih my gut on the issue, nto a party platform line.

/shrug.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#71 Mar 10 2009 at 7:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I want people to challenge their assumptions. I want them to question the very beliefs they've been taught to base their entire political ideology on.
Which is funny because I don't think I've come across anyone as blindly partisan as you. I mean, shit, I criticise the Democrats from time to time. Smash accuses Obama of making a shitty VP pick with Biden and loading bills with pay-offs to the medical industry. I'm not saying folks constantly ***** about the Democrats because most often we agree (or at least give them the benefit of the doubt) but at least we occassionally wander off the ranch and down the street a spell.

But you're the most "circle the wagons" partisan hack I know. Everything is either perfectly justifiable with the right mental contortions or else is actually the fault of the Democrats/Liberal Media/... well, no "etc", just one of those two.

The idea that you'd be an advocate of questioning one's beliefs is laughable.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Mar 11 2009 at 6:06 AM Rating: Decent
**
291 posts
Paulsol wrote:
I'm feeling particularly caritative towards the oppressed today.


Caritative ... I had to look that one up!
#73 Mar 11 2009 at 6:28 AM Rating: Decent
If the liberals on this forum want a real workout they need to look no further than myspace forums.


Smiley: schooled

Edited, Mar 11th 2009 7:28am by NaughtyWord
#74 Mar 11 2009 at 9:21 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
I've... never seen gbaji, almost, hurt or something. I'm not sure how to feel about that.
#75 Mar 11 2009 at 9:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
NaughtyWord wrote:
If the liberals on this forum want a real workout they need to look no further than myspace forums.
I'd post with the Freepers if they had an actual forum/comment system that wasn't designed by monkey committee.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Mar 11 2009 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
*
69 posts
Quote:
Dear God, send more conservatives than Gbaji, Varrus and Gwyn.

You called?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 378 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (378)