• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Reasons we can't have good conversations.

What I call the great assumption.

If I post a criticism of the Obama White House, there is a great chance that post will be attacked as "right wing talking points" and I will be accused of regurgitating Fox News, which isn't even available to me. Other demonizations follow in an effort to deny the message by attacking the messenger.

It is called the Ad Hominem logical fallacy. It is very abundant in DP.
 
Yeah, I finally decided that life was too short to waste it on the insane so I've started putting the dogmatic, irrational and utterly insane religious people on my ignore list. They have nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation and have demonstrated that they aren't interested in having a reciprocal discussion. They just want to preach nonsense. I have no time to waste on such fools.

I don't know, it is sort of fun just to keep winning debates...
 
What I call the great assumption.

If I post a criticism of the Obama White House, there is a great chance that post will be attacked as "right wing talking points" and I will be accused of regurgitating Fox News, which isn't even available to me. Other demonizations follow in an effort to deny the message by attacking the messenger.

Yep, if you question the idea that there is enough ice up the Himalayas to produce a 6" sea level rise should it melt you get told that you are being paid by big oil. The fact that looking at google earth and adding up the ice in the mountains will get you an answer 1/100th of this is ignored.
 
Agnostic means "without knowing." Atheistic means "without a god." Generally the difference is how certain individuals are about the existence of a god, with agnostics believing it is unlikely, but possible and atheists ranging from believing it is highly unlikely to impossible. There is a lot of overlap and disagreement over where to draw the distinction between the two terms.

I say the degree one connects their meanings with concepts of "God" is the degree they fall in either religious, agnostic, or atheist categories. A religious person that has their entire life around "God" has way too many connections invested on (a useless concept in IMHO) such a concept. A shallow religious person has some cognitive connections related to "God." Now an agnostic is willing to connect with such a concept but disagrees with the dogmatic wishful thinking approach, thus they wait for a more objective method. An Atheist has no connections at all and does not even cares to try connecting them with the concept of "God." It is not the case that an Atheist has "Counter God" connections, but that anything related to "God" lacks and they are not interested in creating some neither.

The "Counter God" connections may be found among Satanists and other Devil worshipers for instance.

References:

About — Connectivism
 
Sigh... how hard did you try? Haven't you ever heard of astroturfing?

Agent of influence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An example of a government having a fleet of propagandists that post online:
Russia's Online-Comment Propaganda Army - The Atlantic

There are only a few known cases of the U.S. government doing it directly, like this one. Mostly, it relies on the corporate sector to tow the line, since the two entities are so intertwined at this point. Government is business and business is government.



Here's a nice info graphic:
These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America - Business Insider

The media is controlled by a handful of corporations, some of whom are staffed by former members of government or vice versa. The FDA is also full of cronyism. The government may not issue edicts censoring or banning media directly, but it just takes a quick phone call to a corporate "partner" or business associate to get a story changed. It happens all the time and is referred to as just doing business or "public relations". If someone important enough does not want a portion of a story to go to air, it gets cut. These kinds of political favors happen all the time. It's not conspiracy, it's reality.

As for media polarization, here is the largest study ever done on the issue:
Political Polarization in the American Public | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

America is more polarized than ever before. Is it any wonder? All the media does is create a false dilemma between two opposing views and then pits them against one another. Real information and critical thinking in the media requires abstract thought and complex reasoning, something that our media has abandoned in favor of sensationalism. That, and most of our media corporations are part of larger conglomerations that have ties to the military-industrial complex, so it's in their interest to keep the war machine going. Keep the sheep riled up and they won't bother checking into the real story.

Now... I've done enough work for you. I pulled up these links in about 10 minutes of searching. Try harder next time.

You're welcome!

I'm glad you took those ten minutes. That's an informative post.
 
Yep, if you question the idea that there is enough ice up the Himalayas to produce a 6" sea level rise should it melt you get told that you are being paid by big oil. The fact that looking at google earth and adding up the ice in the mountains will get you an answer 1/100th of this is ignored.


I suggest the perfect example of questionable logic in the research is the report seven years ago that the Snows of Kilimanjaro were disappearing forever due to man made global warming. Recently the researchers conceded the forecast was wrong after discovering that the snows had returned, the disappearance was caused by natural shifts in local climate.

The head researcher said of his absolute, no ambiguity forecast: "We didn't know a lot then, we do now." and went on to suggest that the reasoning for the forecast was sound, only not supported by the data which will, he says, change. In other words, keep funding me anyway.
 
I suggest the perfect example of questionable logic in the research is the report seven years ago that the Snows of Kilimanjaro were disappearing forever due to man made global warming. Recently the researchers conceded the forecast was wrong after discovering that the snows had returned, the disappearance was caused by natural shifts in local climate.

The head researcher said of his absolute, no ambiguity forecast: "We didn't know a lot then, we do now." and went on to suggest that the reasoning for the forecast was sound, only not supported by the data which will, he says, change. In other words, keep funding me anyway.

Yes, but the thing is that the top few meters of that mountain have snow on them. If the temperature rises by 1 degree c the snow line will rise in altitude by 100m. So if the temperature of Kenya rises by 0.2 degrees the snow will vanish from Kilimanjaro. And so what? The fact that it has not is clear unchallengeable evidence that the temperature has not risen. If it ever melts then you can believe that it has gotten slightly warmer. Until that mountain is snow free don't believe there has been any temperature rise.
 
Yes, but the thing is that the top few meters of that mountain have snow on them. If the temperature rises by 1 degree c the snow line will rise in altitude by 100m. So if the temperature of Kenya rises by 0.2 degrees the snow will vanish from Kilimanjaro. And so what? The fact that it has not is clear unchallengeable evidence that the temperature has not risen. If it ever melts then you can believe that it has gotten slightly warmer. Until that mountain is snow free don't believe there has been any temperature rise.



Please.

Read the %#%& report.
 
So this really is just a call out thread?

It was a recent conversation, and an additional reason, but in your opinion a single instance characterizes the entire thread?

I'm kind of new. I looked, but am not sure. Is it against DP rules, other than in the nether regions of the forum?
 
I would add Preconceived Worldviews to that list. Many posters base their political affiliation on a worldview they've held for most or all of their life. They refuse to open their mind and think of other possibilities because that would collapse their most deeply held belief structures.

I agree. I believe that virtually all worldviews are outer representations of inner convictions experienced on a felt level and dating sometimes from the most formative experiences, including those that constitute the individual personality - its neurosis, fears and defence mechanisms. They may often be rationally defended but they are almost never rationally derived.
 
I would add Preconceived Worldviews to that list. Many posters base their political affiliation on a worldview they've held for most or all of their life. They refuse to open their mind and think of other possibilities because that would collapse their most deeply held belief structures.

I don't have too many anchors. The more entanglements the worse the pull. Surprise could come at any given moment.
 
I would add Preconceived Worldviews to that list. Many posters base their political affiliation on a worldview they've held for most or all of their life. They refuse to open their mind and think of other possibilities because that would collapse their most deeply held belief structures.

Yes. Many people are not capable of having a discussion. They'd rather argue. Rather than discussing ideas and trying to understand another viewpoint, or evolve a stance, or seek truth many are more interested in being right and making others wrong.
 
Yes. Many people are not capable of having a discussion. They'd rather argue. Rather than discussing ideas and trying to understand another viewpoint, or evolve a stance, or seek truth many are more interested in being right and making others wrong.

That's one thing I strive not to do. I've always been fairly open-minded and, as a result, I've evolved alot. From a hard-right conservative to a neo-libertarian to a minarchist to, now, a "liberaltarian" or left-libertarian.
 
Back
Top Bottom