why?

[Alfster]

I've never been one to argue politics, but the question is for those of you who do. Why do you do it? Do you honestly feel like your thoughts on the matters mean anything? That they'll change something? Do you think that your "unbiased" opinions supported by rather questionable facts (at times) will help sway someone towards your thoughts?

Curious, because reading through some of these threads is good humor.

[xtc]

Some people argue politics like others argue sports. I think a good argument can influence an open mind.

[Back]

Well, why do any of us post any opinion on any subject?

[Hulkein]

I go in and out of it. Sometimes I think the same way you're thinking right now, Alfster, but after a while I just get the urge to talk them again. Not really with the hopes of swaying anyone, just for something to do.

[Alfster]

Some people argue politics like others argue sports. I think a good argument can influence an open mind.

Valid point


Well, why do any of us post any opinion on any subject?

In your case, I wonder that a lot.

[Asha]

Politics covers almost everything which affects our lives. It's an open ended argument (like sports as mentioned) which people can enjoy infinitately.
Also there's so many viewpoints and people who'll standby them that there's always a good debate ahead.
And probably good for boards, where you can admit defeat and say 'oh fuck you, you're ugly'.

[Alfster]

I go in and out of it. Sometimes I think the same way you're thinking right now, Alfster, but after a while I just get the urge to talk them again. Not really with the hopes of swaying anyone, just for something to do.

That makes sense to me as well, it just seems that lately viewpoints have gotten quite far out and laughable...and I was curious if certain people had an agenda.

I say this mostly because when one of my friends learned that I supported the war, they lectured me on reasons why I shouldn't have supported the war and it got to the point where I just stopped talking to her because it was annoying as fuck. She seemed to think that she could make a difference by swaying one persons views and I was curious as to whether or not others felt that way.

[SpunGirl]

I'd certainly like to think that politics arguments on the PC influenced Dave to enlist. If that's not a good reason, what is?

-K

[xtc]

I'd certainly like to think that politics arguments on the PC influenced Dave to enlist. If that's not a good reason, what is?

-K

ouch ur mean...

[Apathy]

I've never been one to argue politics, but the question is for those of you who do. Why do you do it? Do you honestly feel like your thoughts on the matters mean anything? That they'll change something? Do you think that your "unbiased" opinions supported by rather questionable facts (at times) will help sway someone towards your thoughts?

Curious, because reading through some of these threads is good humor.

Debating ideals is a healthy way to exercise the mind. Political debate - actually any debate is just philosophy.

SAT Example:

George Bush is better than Al Gore is to White Widow is better than Northern Lights. Discuss.

[Asha]

There is absolutely no way I'd smoke Al Gore.
:puke:

[Stanley Burrell]

I've never been one to argue politics, but the question is for those of you who do. Why do you do it? Do you honestly feel like your thoughts on the matters mean anything? That they'll change something? Do you think that your "unbiased" opinions supported by rather questionable facts (at times) will help sway someone towards your thoughts?

Curious, because reading through some of these threads is good humor.


This sort of rhetoric deserves an Amen :clap:


As we should all know by now, there had been a certain leader of the United States who fell into the very realistic realms of being crime-trialed after his impeachment on the account of his lying under oath about receiving oral sex from an intern.

Since the aforementioned certain leader of the United States' days of the Waco expeditions to another man's non-sexual tapping of Wong Wey's Chinese dirigible... to a 2000 C.E.-modern day timeline of exposure leaks, memo leaks, leaking memos, leaking exposures... And, of course, the politically-induced death of a couple tens of thou' on the side... These slews of brain-bleeding after brain-bleeding events have me asking the simple question of, "Why are you; the high-horsers, the selfishly-proclaimed disinterested, the optimists, pessimists, the chaotic neutrals, the etc., even trying to take these eon-aged politically repeated and repeated again actions with anything slightly more than a molecule of NaCl?" -- Why are you making yourself this unhappy if you would not be (unhappy, I assume) had you made the decision of turning a deaf ear, or a blind eye, or some neuropathy peripheralized skin, etc., long ago? When THAT (intelligent ignorance) in itself, is what I strongly believe to be the only working form of pro-active decision making that can be met with any kind of tangible result for 99.9% of politically concerned individuals?


Pointless. Fucking pointless, so sayeth I. Bah!


But uh, yeah... Just echoing a bit of the above sentiment... :whistle:

Stanley Burrell.

[Alfster]

George Bush is better than Al Gore is to White Widow is better than Northern Lights. Discuss.

A reference i can understand.

[xtc]

This sort of rhetoric deserves an Amen :clap:


As we should all know by now, there had been a certain leader of the United States who fell into the very realistic realms of being crime-trialed after his impeachment on the account of his lying under oath about receiving oral sex from an intern.

Since the aforementioned certain leader of the United States' days of the Waco expeditions to another man's non-sexual tapping of Wong Wey's Chinese dirigible... to a 2000 C.E.-modern day timeline of exposure leaks, memo leaks, leaking memos, leaking exposures... And, of course, the politically-induced death of a couple tens of thou' on the side... These slews of brain-bleeding after brain-bleeding events have me asking the simple question of, "Why are you; the high-horsers, the selfishly-proclaimed disinterested, the optimists, pessimists, the chaotic neutrals, the etc., even trying to take these eon-aged politically repeated and repeated again actions with anything slightly more than a molecule of NaCl?" -- Why are you making yourself this unhappy if you would not be (unhappy, I assume) had you made the decision of turning a deaf ear, or a blind eye, or some neuropathy peripheralized skin, etc., long ago? When THAT (intelligent ignorance) in itself, is what I strongly believe to be the only working form of pro-active decision making that can be met with any kind of tangible result for 99.9% of politically concerned individuals?


Pointless. Fucking pointless, so sayeth I. Bah!


But uh, yeah... Just echoing a bit of the above sentiment... :whistle:

Stanley Burrell.

...because as fruitless as it may seem, as useless, it is better than being apathetic. It does have an effect, as minute as it may seem. Congress impeached Clinton for lying under oath. Bush has a 23% popularity rating. Whoever wins the next Presidential election will not be as arrogant and high handed as Bush. An informed public is an armed public.

[Stanley Burrell]

...because as fruitless as it may seem, as useless, it is better than being apathetic. It does have an effect, as minute as it may seem. Congress impeached Clinton for lying under oath. Bush has a 23% popularity rating. Whoever wins the next Presidential election will not be as arrogant and high handed as Bush. An informed public is an armed public.

...In which case I disagree so strongly, I happened to make both of my five-hours-of-accidentally-falling-asleep-in-the-Floridian-sun-while-in-a-poolside-deck chair sunburned eyelids simultaneously peel their entirety via gritted teeth and pronounced squinting whilst reading over the aforementioned response :injured:

Stanley Burrell.

[Alfster]

An informed public is an armed public.

Agreed. However.


Please shut the fuck up with the fixed elections.

People like you, Backlash, hurt the own cause you're fighting for.

Also agreed.

[Kranar]

I'd say, based on several years of observation on these forums and others that there's a certain egotistical satisfaction and self-rewarding feeling to debating politics on an internet message board.

We tend to associate power with politics and so to debate politics is a way for some to feel powerful. This is why political debates often exclusively result in flame wars, character attacks, or just wars between different peoples egos/attitudes rather than genuine discussion about the political subject matter. When someone feels like they've "won" a political debate, it makes them feel more powerful.

This isn't just a problem that occurs on these forums, but a problem in virtually all non-academic forums in general. Very rarely do you see determinism vs. free will debates turn into an flame fest of character attacks or egos. Or two mathematicians debating the legitimacy of the Axiom of Choice resort to a smear campaign. Even in the most passionate of mathematical or philosophical debates, usually everyone debating has a genuine interest to learn rather than an interest in proving that everyone else wrong.

But of course, "winning" a mathematical or philosophical debate doesn't result in power in any sense of the word, and so there's not so much of a desperation to prove how right you are and smear your opponent.

Debates are a great way to learn. Heck, some of the best learning experiences come when you debate with someone else where both of you are supporting positions you totally disagree with. Of course, unless everyone your debating with has an interest to learn rather than an interest to be "right," you'll find that the debate is more or less pointless and uneventful.

[ElanthianSiren]

-Some people debate political things to try to argue either side convincingly, (people who want to go into law do this extensively): a test of skill.

-Some people do it to try to understand the opposite viewpoint and why that view is held (factcheck).

-Some people do it because they just plain like to argue (people who will take both sides of an issue and argue neither adequately).

-Some people do it because they know that political topics stir up others, and they're looking for attention.

-Some people honestly care about politics and would like to have their opinions heard in the hope of influencing the future (bit narcissistic, I suppose).

-Some people argue politics to be corrected.

-Some people argue politics to try to predict the coming political climate or guage the current one (like a fashion show).

-Some people are just frustrated and want to express that wherever they can.

There are probably many more, but I can't think of them right now.

-M

[Back]

I've never been one to argue politics, but the question is for those of you who do. Why do you do it? Do you honestly feel like your thoughts on the matters mean anything? That they'll change something? Do you think that your "unbiased" opinions supported by rather questionable facts (at times) will help sway someone towards your thoughts?

Curious, because reading through some of these threads is good humor.

OMG, you actually have a brain. Well done. You did not just tack on a post as some hand-job to someone elses post. This is progress.

Good for you!

Now think a minute on your first post and reflect on why you felt it was needed. You have a brain, right?

[DeV]

I appreciate healthy discourse and the political discussions provide that every now and then. I'd imagine alot of folks on the boards don't have the opportunity to debate politics in real life as much as we tend to here. It makes things interesting.

[Back]

Its called a “Socratic” dialogue.

[Alfster]

Now think a minute on your first post and reflect on why you felt it was needed. You have a brain, right?

I went into more detail further down....


I say this mostly because when one of my friends learned that I supported the war, they lectured me on reasons why I shouldn't have supported the war and it got to the point where I just stopped talking to her because it was annoying as fuck. She seemed to think that she could make a difference by swaying one persons views and I was curious as to whether or not others felt that way.

In general with politics I'm quite apathetic and it suits me fine. The people that make the decisions in the country are elected and also have tons of more information that we can't see, things that we wont see until it becomes declassified.

The major difference that I see between discussing politics and discussing sports is that in sports, we have the information. We know who won, we know who's playing on what teams. In politics, we may think we know everything, but in my opinion, we really don't know shit.

[Sean of the Thread]

Double True.

[Back]

The major difference that I see between discussing politics and discussing sports is that in sports, we have the information. We know who won, we know who's playing on what teams. In politics, we may think we know everything, but in my opinion, we really don't know shit.

Seems to me like this is a big problem as they supposedly work for us.

[Alfster]

They serve our interests, as a country, they don't work directly for us as a person. There are things that we can not know in order for them to do their job effectively.

[Back]

I think that view is autocratic. In other words, you accept that there is a Big Brother telling you what to do.

[Alfster]

wtf ever it is, it at least makes sense

[StrayRogue]

Your sports argument means shit. Yes we know the score, we know who is on what team. This does not mean we know anything beyond these facts, as in politics. Only those inside know how things are really working and I think this is why arguing about sports is generally very similar to arguing about politics.

[Alfster]

Your sports argument means shit. Yes we know the score, we know who is on what team. This does not mean we know anything beyond these facts, as in politics. Only those inside know how things are really working and I think this is why arguing about sports is generally very similar to arguing about politics.

Valid point I guess, although there are many many more knowns in the sports world than in poltics.

[StrayRogue]

That depends on perceptions. Politics encompasses a bazillion more areas, topics and matters than sports ever will.