Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Gun Laws, Abortion, Health Care, Taxes, War, Education


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#51 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 16,913
  • Reputation: 8,832
SUPPORTER

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:59 PM

There is a difference between being a centrist and trying to be objective.

#52 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,529
  • Reputation: 1,266
HUDDLER

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:00 PM

nothing? ok cool

#53 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,933
  • Reputation: 18,361
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun
HUDDLER

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:01 PM

outside of anecdotes and insults, how does he defend his positions? maybe things are different in the threads i haven't posted in but it sure seems like he's allergic to evidence


i've noticed that whenever you and kurb start a dialogue it escalates instantly into a form of discourse where a legitimate point is secondary to trenchant sniping and overt assholery... at which point i generally fast-foward to the next point made (or a new thread entirely) unless the debate is particularly gripping, since more often than not the integrity of the original issue is abandoned by pursuit of tangents.

i recognize that this is not always the case, and despite your general asshattery as a method of delivery i tend to respect where you're coming from on positions because you're constantly backing them up with data and logical argumentation. i tend to look at the substance of an argument rather than a conclusion.

anyway the point is i can't cite a specific example of kurb's positional defense as related to yours - perhaps you could cite some? and even then the integrity of our perception is reality is fundamentally altered because of the communicative blinders existent inherently in messageboard dialogues where power and agency are interplaying dynamics serving to constantly obscure true motivations, methods, and understandings.

based on what i know of kurb from his facebook postings and general positioning on here, he is fairly conservative (fiscally at least, i would contend otherwise in other areas.) and yet in a thread about marxism he was demonstrably open to an evidence-based discussion in political theoretical orientation, exploring marxism and seeking to understand its proponents and its substance, in spite of its opposition to traditional capitalist political theory from which he is (i assume) established.

this is the only example i can think of right off, but i'm not trying very hard

#54 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 13,705
  • Reputation: 4,445
  • LocationILM
Administrators

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:02 PM

nothing? ok cool



I hope you take something from what I said.
I am honestly trying to help you here.

#55 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • Joined: 27-December 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,732
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:02 PM

I would much rather argue with someone... let's call him g5spamz ... that is a partisan sheep that gets all of his opinions from brietbart because he at least makes his opinions known and defends them even if they are bad ones.

People that do nothing but whine about political parties in every thread no matter how irrelevant that is to the topic contribute absolutely nothing. I don't have any problem with actual moderation. It's these vague nothing-posts I see everywhere is what drives me nuts.

It's ad hominem is what it is.

Posted Image


I am sure that there are things you feel strongly about. I am sure that you would go to the ends of the Earth (or at least the end of a keyboard) in order to convey the validity of your belief to those that you feel in need of your enlightenment. But do you pick those opinions based on your sense of right or wrong? Do you have a moral compass like every other human being in the world? Or do you simply pick your side based on what you as a liberal or conservative, dem or rep, black or white, northerner or southerner would be expected to. Is it possible to change the culture of this nation. Change it into something other than what the talking heads tell us we should be. We all want things to be better. Some of us have seen horrors of this world that others cant imagine. And we have learned that there is truly a right, as opposed to wrong. There is morality that is clearly defined and visible to us all. But in an attempt to be true to people that do not deserve such loyalty, we as a nation tend to shed our morality in hopes of fulfilling the perfect image of our chosen group, regardless of the goodness or lack thereof that exists in our chosen arguments

#56 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,529
  • Reputation: 1,266
HUDDLER

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:06 PM

I hope you take something from what I said.
I am honestly trying to help you here.


yeah i get it, you don't hate gays anymore so you shouldn't have to support your positions beyond anecdotes and insults

#57 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 13,705
  • Reputation: 4,445
  • LocationILM
Administrators

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:06 PM

i've noticed that whenever you and kurb start a dialogue it escalates instantly into a form of discourse where a legitimate point is secondary to trenchant sniping and overt assholery... at which point i generally fast-foward to the next point made (or a new thread entirely) unless the debate is particularly gripping, since more often than not the integrity of the original issue is abandoned by pursuit of tangents.

i recognize that this is not always the case, and despite your general asshattery as a method of delivery i tend to respect where you're coming from on positions because you're constantly backing them up with data and logical argumentation. i tend to look at the substance of an argument rather than a conclusion.

anyway the point is i can't cite a specific example of kurb's positional defense as related to yours - perhaps you could cite some? and even then the integrity of our perception is reality is fundamentally altered because of the communicative blinders existent inherently in messageboard dialogues where power and agency are interplaying dynamics serving to constantly obscure true motivations, methods, and understandings.

based on what i know of kurb from his facebook postings and general positioning on here, he is fairly conservative (fiscally at least, i would contend otherwise in other areas.) and yet in a thread about marxism he was demonstrably open to an evidence-based discussion in political theoretical orientation, exploring marxism and seeking to understand its proponents and its substance, in spite of its opposition to traditional capitalist political theory from which he is (i assume) established.

this is the only example i can think of right off, but i'm not trying very hard


I will accept that. :)

I tend to disagree with a good bit of the things PhillyB says, but I will say his position on some issues has softened what was once a hard stance I would have had. Panthro and Delhommey also to an extent. Even tho they are trolling 90% of the time.

#58 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,436
  • Reputation: 3,529
HUDDLER

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:08 PM

^^^Who in the tinderbox are you accusing of worshiping talking heads?

Names please.

If you are talking about the general public, well they don't post here so what's the point of bringing it up. Yeah bro it sucks that people watch TV and stuff but I'm not gonna spend a lot of time worrying about it since it's been that way for decades and isn't changing.

#59 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,933
  • Reputation: 18,361
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun
HUDDLER

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:10 PM

centrist is a pretty fuging generous term to describe the area between two neoliberal parties. it would make sense if, instead of the democratic party and the republican party we had a socialist or even communist party and the republican party. there's nothing centrist about the glorious middle ground between the republicans and the democratics


hmm, i can get behind that. i think a massive amount of conflict comes into play in the arena of social issues (which you could argue are principle in the dealing out of ideological stripes.) we'd have a different conversation entirely if we could talk about ideological centrism as it pertains to social issues alone, or isolate economic ones and discuss them

#60 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,436
  • Reputation: 3,529
HUDDLER

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:11 PM

OP you mentioned tinderbox posters spouting talking points from the MSM in the first paragraph so let's list names and examples


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users