"Don't you guys ever get tired of having the same shouting match over and over again here on the RJ Forums?"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 3:58 PM GMT
    Discuss without insults, please. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 4:08 PM GMT
    I guess I don't see them as "the same shouting match" since it often begins with a topical issue. But, admittedly, it does often boil down to the two core issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 4:10 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidI guess I don't see them as "the same shouting match" since it often begins with a topical issue. But, admittedly, it does often boil down to the two core issues.


    You calling 'us' racists and what's the other one?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 4:17 PM GMT
    There seems to be just a tendency to push views forwards, without real effort at discussion. (It's a discussion forum, no?)

    Shouldn't it be give AND take, not just push and shove?

    One should invent a smilie which means: "agree to disagree on this point."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 4:22 PM GMT
    That's because it virtually always ends up like this




    The next civil war in this country will be between the right and left and it won't be very civil.

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 28, 2011 4:40 PM GMT
    SHOUTING? WHO'S SHOUTING?!? I DON'T SEE ANYONE SHOUTING!!! WHO'S SHOUTING?!?!??!???? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 5:52 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidSHOUTING? WHO'S SHOUTING?!? I DON'T SEE ANYONE SHOUTING!!! WHO'S SHOUTING?!?!??!???? icon_rolleyes.gif


    "agree to disagree on this point."icon_lol.gif
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    May 28, 2011 5:59 PM GMT
    The right wing loons can't even agree amidst themselves...LOL

  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    May 28, 2011 6:00 PM GMT
    OneGeezer said
    Christian73 saidI guess I don't see them as "the same shouting match" since it often begins with a topical issue. But, admittedly, it does often boil down to the two core issues.


    You calling 'us' racists and what's the other one?


    Well personal attacks using four letter language should be off the table.
    You can agree to disagree with civility.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 6:06 PM GMT
    No.

    It's like playing the home version game of Crossfire. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 6:12 PM GMT
    More importantly, discussion should reveal what each others' assumed priors are. If those priors are irreconciliable, then an "agree to disagree" position should be taken.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theoremAumann's agreement theorem says that two people acting rationally (in a certain precise sense) and with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree. More specifically, if two people are genuine Bayesian rationalists with common priors, and if they each have common knowledge of their individual posteriors, then their posteriors must be equal.[1]

    A question arises whether such an agreement can be reached in a reasonable time and, from a mathematical perspective, whether this can be done efficiently. Scott Aaronson has shown that this is indeed the case.[2]

    Of course, the assumption of common priors is a rather strong one and may not hold in practice. However, Robin Hanson has presented an argument that Bayesians who agree about the processes that gave rise to their priors (e.g., genetic and environmental influences) should, if they adhere to a certain pre-rationality condition, have common priors.[3]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 6:13 PM GMT
    Yes, I do get tired of it. It's difficult to have a good conversation when you get distracted by the insults.

    IMO, there are already a couple of "violations" on this thread - on both sides of the political spectrum.

    Not sure how you can avoid it on an unmoderated forum, though.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 28, 2011 6:30 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidThe right wing loons can't even agree amidst themselves...LOL




    That was interesting to watch. These are pundits spouting -- nothing more, nothing less. There is no way that Bay Buchanan can really accurately gauge how Sarah Palin's stepping down as Governor of Alaska is going to effect her chances as a possible GOP contender -- or if it will even effect it at all. Ann Coulter actually made the most sense. Sarah Palin IS popular, and this makes liberals crazy. I totally disagreed with the guy who quipped that Sarah Palin is hardly a uniter if this is how Republicans are reacting. What the Republicans actually need is someone who shakes things up a bit within the party and gets some of these mealy-mouthed Republicans to either shit or get off the pot. If she can manage to do nothing else but that, she will have accomplished something.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 28, 2011 6:32 PM GMT
    showme saidYes, I do get tired of it. It's difficult to have a good conversation when you get distracted by the insults.

    IMO, there are already a couple of "violations" on this thread - on both sides of the political spectrum.

    Not sure how you can avoid it on an unmoderated forum, though.



    It can be avoided if each poster would just take personal responsibility and simply keep their posts to voicing their opinions and not personal attacking others. We're not curing cancer here. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 7:28 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    showme saidYes, I do get tired of it. It's difficult to have a good conversation when you get distracted by the insults.

    IMO, there are already a couple of "violations" on this thread - on both sides of the political spectrum.

    Not sure how you can avoid it on an unmoderated forum, though.



    It can be avoided if each poster would just take personal responsibility and simply keep their posts to voicing their opinions and not personal attacking others. We're not curing cancer here. icon_rolleyes.gif




    LMFAO!
    YOU are in no position to be preaching that, curious!
    Apparently, you're a disciple of the "do as I say, not as I do" school.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 28, 2011 7:52 PM GMT
    Of course.
    But, when I'm dealing with stupid, bigoted, racist, radical Republican liars, what do you expect ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 8:50 PM GMT
    Hmmmm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 9:01 PM GMT
    I think that a few posters have answered the question "don't you guys ever get tired of having the same shouting match over and over" with a resounding "NO!" It seems like every time somebody sees what they perceive to be a slight towards their political leaning they feel the need to go on the offensive... others seem to think the more loudly they shout and the more often they shout the more likely they are to be heard.

    Perhaps a better question would have been "don't you guys ever get sick of hearing the same shouting matches over and over" as it might have attracted more "middle of the road" posters who do not take part in the shouting matches. Perhaps that topic might have brought in the majority of the other posters who actually steer clear of the shouting matches and really are sick of reading them instead of those of us who partake in them (I will include myself in this group as even though I try not to, I probably do on occasion.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 9:04 PM GMT
    I try to concentrate on the post and what I can intelligently, thoughtfully contribute. I'll leave the mud slinging to the politicians.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 3:52 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidOf course.
    But, when I'm dealing with stupid, bigoted, racist, radical Republican liars, what do you expect ?


    And then we wonder how it all gets started ^^^^^
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 3:58 AM GMT
    west77 saidI think that a few posters have answered the question "don't you guys ever get tired of having the same shouting match over and over" with a resounding "NO!" It seems like every time somebody sees what they perceive to be a slight towards their political leaning they feel the need to go on the offensive... others seem to think the more loudly they shout and the more often they shout the more likely they are to be heard.

    Perhaps a better question would have been "don't you guys ever get sick of hearing the same shouting matches over and over" as it might have attracted more "middle of the road" posters who do not take part in the shouting matches. Perhaps that topic might have brought in the majority of the other posters who actually steer clear of the shouting matches and really are sick of reading them instead of those of us who partake in them (I will include myself in this group as even though I try not to, I probably do on occasion.)



    It's more than their political leanings, of which choosing seems to come about in the first place from their personal code of ethics and how a political party dovetails or promotes them. Ironically, codes of ethics are pan-demographic, and can't be contained by any one political party.

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 4:19 AM GMT
    meninlove said

    It's more than their political leanings, of which choosing seems to come about in the first place from their personal code of ethics and how a political party dovetails or promotes them. Ironically, codes of ethics are pan-demographic, and can't be contained by any one political party.

    -Doug


    All right; I like your explanation a lot better than mine. I guess it always seems to tie into politics... but you are correct that it really is much more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 4:30 AM GMT
    icon_wink.gif
    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 4:08 PM GMT
    I'll dare to go a step further, West77. When it comes to personal codes of ethics, there are people that have very narrow ones indeed. Some are entirely selfish (look out for #1 at all costs as an example), some ill-defined or calculatedly vague or ham-fisted while others have pronounced codes that are fine-tuned, some inclusive and some involve social responsibility and collective culpability.

    There are also those that have extreme personal prejudices that influence their codes of ethics. These see only the worst of any political party that isn't the one they've chosen for themselves. A blind or blinkered loyalty that to me is as dangerous as blind or blinkered religious belief.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 4:21 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    There are also those that have extreme personal prejudices that influence their codes of ethics. These see only the worst of any political party that isn't the one they've chosen for themselves. A blind or blinkered loyalty that to me is as dangerous as blind or blinkered religious belief.


    But it doesn't have to be that way. It doesn't have to reflect on one's intelligence, morals or character if one's chosen party occasionally does the wrong thing, and it helps to admit to oneself that the majority of the party doesn't define one as a person. The contortions that some people go through to justify bad behavior on their side, and to think only the worst of the other side, boggles the mind.

    Viz. gay marriage and the prevalent majority position of Republicans.