Just something to be said

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AllHazzardi, Jan 23, 2009.

  1. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California
    You know, I've been in and out perusing these forums for a long time. I find it amazing how blind some are, and how hypocritical others are.

    You see, what I've found is that everyone in these forums really just doesn't read what they type some of the time. As left vilifies right for being petty money-mongering warheads which dig at and attempt to undermine the left, left continuously digs up and attempts to undermine the right. Likewise, right often is too stuck up on itself to recognize a good idea, and often argues solely for the sake of arguing.

    Can't we be done with these pointless fights? For all the complaining by the left in the past 8 years, I wonder how many letters were written to senators and congressmen. Likewise, in the time of Clinton, I wonder how many letters were written by the plaintiffs at that time. Our government functions on the principle that the will of the people is the will of the country. If you say it doesn't work that way anymore, that's why the will of the people is so important. If you do not do your part, your will isn't known, and so the problems you complain about never change. How many people go out and vote in local and less essential elections when their man or woman is already in office? The numbers are staggeringly pathetic. If you don't do what you can to steer change in your favored direction, you have no right to complain.


    It's also startling how few people realize that they've been drawn in to the pointless party squabbling that everyone's complaining about anyway.

    Look who did this thing.
    That's a lie, here's the truth.
    A is a *deleted expletive*.
    B is a *slightly more severe deleted expletive*.
    Your man did something bad, mine did something good.
    You're too stupid to see the good in my man's actions, or the consequences of your man's.


    The whole system has broken because the people have fallen in with the parties. This is why it's broken. Not corrupt politicians, not corrupt judges, not corrupt presidents. Corrupt people. The party should fall in with the people, NOT the other way around. In our country, the people lead, and if they do not do that, our system fails.

    So can't we just stop the damn arguing, squabbling, complaining, undermining, attempts at dishonor, and attempts at bragging and just get on with DOING something about it? Seriously, enough is enough. This is a political FORUM, not a Salem witch trial.

    And for those who don't know:

    o·rum (fôr'əm, fōr'-) Pronunciation Key
    n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr'ə, fōr'ə)
    The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
    A public meeting place for open discussion.
    A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.
    A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.
    A court of law; a tribunal.


    Not a fierce argument, not a mud-slinging contest, a discussion. A cycle of point and counterpoint supported by reasonable logical premise.


    And so, discuss.




    Oh, and for those who want some jellied gasoline;

    I voted for McCain.
     
    #1 AllHazzardi, Jan 23, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2009
  2. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    ''Not an fierce argument, not a mud-slinging contest, a discussion. A cycle of point and counterpoint supported by reasonable logical premise''................... in a perfect world that might be the case.
     
  3. D_Adoniah Sheervolume

    D_Adoniah Sheervolume Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    503
    Likes Received:
    1
    hey AllHazzardi, you're a $*(&ing douche for bringing this up! <huge grin>

    (in case some didn't get it, that was a joke)

    signed,
    obviously not in the mood to earnestly contribute today
     
  4. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California
    That just may be true. Of course, our world will always be what we choose to make it, perfect or not.
     
  5. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,590
    Likes Received:
    875
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    You raise a good point and a naive one.


    The word forum refers to the Roman and Greek concept of the Forum.
    And, I can tell you that debate and argument are the CORE of all fora.

    Argument, at its best, ought not to resort to ad hominem arguments... but when folks are trying to defend an insupportable idea... when facts and reason are not on their side, they will naturally tend to resort to discounting the opponent's argument by dismissing the opponent.

    Its okay, tho... its healthy... its good for people to see and experience that ad Hominum arguments never win, to exchange ideas... but, for those who have no solid grounding in critical thinking or reasoning, Ad Hominums are all they have.

    Thus, we can expect FOX news and the far right to continue to impugn the character of the left and of Obama, even more so now that their arguments of free market and deregulation have been substantively proven disastrously wrong.
    Un fortunately... when people are attacked... they will tend to defend themselves in kind.

    If your opponent's point is to NOT judge the argument on the merits, but on the character of the party forwarding the arguments... then you are forced to prove that the person taking such a position utterly fails on their OWN yardstick as well as on the level of argument.

    In general, aside from a few slapfests... I find the level of discussion on this forum perfectly civil and in keeping with what you could expect in any civil discourse.

    Listen to the barbs and insults that get exchanged in British Parliament, and you will see the same level of personal, yet predominantly civil, attack.

    While lots of people have hurled insults my way... I recognize they are more in response to ideas I present than me personally..

    And besides... life is not a warm and fuzzy let's all be friends world. The realm of ideas and arguments is a competitive field where memes battle for survival in precisely the same way genes do.

    If you can't take the heat of, sometimes harsh critique... then stay home and play with dolls.
    Any ideas or arguments that can not be defended, are not worthy of survival.




    As to the good point you make... I have seen a lot of Republicans, from John McCain to Powell, respond positively to Obamas genuine initiative at ending the politics of disrespect and abuse.

    I think its a great idea...

    But the group I see MOST opposed to what you suggest are the hard core right of Limbaugh, Orielly, Hannity and their handlers. To the point of even claiming Obama's not even 'really' the president...

    Limbaush actually went on air yesterday and stated that he hopes Obama FAILS to keep America safe....Fails to fix the economy... fails to improve U.S. standing...

    He and the others broadcasts this bile nationwide.


    So what I see, unfortunately, is one side actively reaching out a hand of bi-partisan patriotic repsonse to disaster being actively undermined by one particular and identifiable group.


    What I see is a 25 year long pattern of the liberal side being willing to repsect conservative ideas... and conservatives being unwilling to return the favor.

    To that end I can not agree that ALL are equally culpable.
    Yes there are a lot of folks in the middle... but even among the most extreme left and right...One side is being reasonable- and the other is being reactionary.
    One side pointing to FACTS and the other promulgating lies and denying responsibility.
     
    #5 Phil Ayesho, Jan 23, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2009
  6. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    tend to agree

    however, when I see the affective expressions, I am clued in to the fact that the poster's position arises from something other than rational dialectic discourse

    so, I think there is some value in continuing with the emotive expression
     
  7. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Ah, yes . . . I believe that is commonly known as "painting with Prozac."
     
  8. Elmer Gantry

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,503
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    546
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne (VIC, AU)
    Once upon a time, public debate was seen as a civic duty. The Greeks considered shirking from public debate and controversy a crime.

    In the same spirit, the politicians of all sides who are big enough to see that change isn't a bad thing are to be commended. The ones that don't tend to be are the idealogues and there leadership skills are highly questionable.
     
  9. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    what if you just like to see star go off the deep end?
     
  10. Elmer Gantry

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,503
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    546
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne (VIC, AU)
    Yeah, there's that too.
     
  11. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California

    Both sides have at one point pointed to facts, and both sides have at one point lied and denied responsibility. If you look through the history of the forum, attacks and brags come from both sides. You say one side is at fault, and the other is merely reactionary. Well, I'll agree, one side is always at fault. Shame on them for not having better morals or acceptance. And I'll agree, the other side is often reacting. Shame on them for reacting with anger and attempts to "get back" at the other side. We're bigger people than this.

    It isn't about who is to blame, that's the game both parties have been playing that put us so far downhill. It's about accepting responsibility for your part in a situation REGARDLESS of whose fault it is. I hold the reactionary equally accountable as the responsible. Each party goes back and forth between pointing out facts on both sides of the fence, then reacting to the claims being made.

    The old adage comes to mind: An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. This is why I made this thread originally. Registering blame is the same as an eye for an eye. One side blames the other, and they blame back. We constantly bounce back and forth trying to decide who is responsible instead of resolving the situation at hand. Too busy deciding which twin to shoot instead of killing the mass murderer one of them just set free.

    I'm not asking for a campy world where people accept responsibility for their own actions without a Judicial system. I'm not asking for a happy place where people frolic amongst the trees because everything is provided for them. I'm not asking for a world where you can do anything you want.

    What I ask for is a Country and Government that rises above petty bickering and gets the job done. Our system is designed to work in that fashion, and anything short of it leaves us stagnant, slowly drifting away into the past.

    The people at this forum has gotten caught up in the same cross-party politics that everyone knows is a waste of time and effort, yet still continues doing. It is no unique case, it happens all over. A vast number of people all around the country at once clamoring for change and then pointing a finger at the other team.


    And as to it being a "Naive" statement, far from it. In a classical forum of Greek or Roman times, ad hominem arguments are not only taken down, but often by those who were not part of the initial debate. In this forum, that control isn't there, you don't get silenced when you've already lost your argument due to resorting to ad hominem arguments. You can just keep on attacking others in a virtual forum. This behaviour, for all intents and purposes, is below most people who post here. One might even say that the behaviour is childish. It is the same quality that permeates the political system, as well as this forum. Additionally, in those days, if your argument caved, that affected your reputation. If you fell from the grace of logical and GOOD argument, it was a mark that stayed with you for quite some time. You can be sure if Plato went down in an argumentative blaze of unglory insulting an opponent/using ad hominem arguments, we wouldn't remember him quite as we do now.

    Lastly... sure, you CAN expect FOX to operate how it has operated in the past. But you SHOULDN'T. You should not expect a news agency that claims to be unbiased to be biased. You should expect a news agency that claims to be unbiased to be unbiased, unless it makes claims to its bias(The #1 Republican News Source! Or whatever.). You should do what you can to change it if you would want to see it changed. I say, they claim to be unbiased, so if you feel they are being biased, you should say something about it to them. Sure, they probably won't listen, but if you don't do anything, then you shouldn't dog them for doing what they have always done.

    I don't point fingers at either side because of past events, I point fingers at both sides because of current events. The snarls that exist today solely because of inter party politics have done vast amounts of damage to our system and country. I just feel we can be better than that.
     
  12. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,590
    Likes Received:
    875
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    I think you are right... but I have to point out that you are not gonna get the reactionary to act responsibly.
    Being reactionary is essentially antithetical to accepting reasoned argument, antithetical to treating your opponent with respect and their ideas as deserving consideration.

    This idea fails because the of the plain fact that we can not even address resolving the situation without determining the CAUSE of the situation.

    When conservatives insist on blaming the disaster on Bill Clinton... and simply refuse or deny the actions and effect of the Republican majority... we have debate over their denial of reality and responsibility.

    You come back to this fanciful notion of treating ALL ideas equally... which forbids identifying and discarding ideas that don't work. And THAT is how situations like this arise... by allowing disproven ideas equal standing to ideas that are proven.


    I am with you on that. But again, what passes for political discourse today is the direct result of the subverting of the fourth estate by corporate hegemony.
    Once again... reasoned examination shows that conservative de-regulation of media ownership led to the propagandistic and polarized media that has poisoned public discourse.

    I am all for a truly independent media that actively investigates political claims... but that can't happen unless both sides can accept extremist and biases "news" organizations are, in fact, bad for the nation.

    Once more... we have a liberal faction that would willingly break up owmership of media so that ALL information to the public is not controlled by 7 corporations... Stymied by a disingenuous conservative faction that actively SEEKS to control and manipulate public access to information.


    Sorry... but as long as the conservative faction Actively BELIEVES that the policies that led to disaster are sound, actively believes that the evil of torture can be justified by expediency, actively believes that the Constitution takes a back seek to party and to personal profit... then there will always be one faction that is simply, undeniably and utterly in the wrong.

    The great weakness of the liberal faction is their own willingess to admit when their ideas don't work...
    The arrogant absolutism of the right is a tactic meant to undermine introspection and honest self appraisal.

    I agree with you in principle... but in practice... what can you do with a criminal that will not agree they broke the law?

    What can you do when one side sees reflection and redemption as virtues, and the other sees any admission of fault as contemptuous?

    I do not see how it can be otherwise... given the characters of the factions involved.

    And, as much as I might respect Faceking or Star as individuals... their positions on certain issues are simply, factually, morally or ethically wrong.

    And I can not sit by while someone cries out in a public space that evil is good.
    I can not sit by and accept lies and misinformation being distributed as if true.

    We are in a deep pile of doo doo right now... and it is provably the result of republican policy and initiatives dating back to Nixon.
    That is the fact of our matter.

    I am willing to welcome republicans back to the realm of civil discourse as soon as republicans can pony up some NEW and rethought ideas.

    But instead, what I see is total denial of responsibility, and repeated positive assertions of things already proven wrong.

    We have a president who actively WANTS to forge a more cooperative dialog... faced with conservatives who adamantly refuse to cooperate.
    WHo STILL insist on spreading lies and innuendo to sew the seeds of conflict and polarization.
     
  13. B_bi_in_socal

    B_bi_in_socal New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    We're not going to cooperate if it compromises American values. That's it. If it's tax refunds for people who don't even pay taxes, government run healthcare, social security etc.

    If it's negotiating with mad men like Ahmadinejad, we are not going to cooperate. Peace can only be WON over evil, it can never coexist with it.

    Here is a fundamental difference. These are values we won't set aside just to coexist with the left. Unity is meaningless without righteousness. Life is meaningless without liberty.
     
  14. B_bi_in_socal

    B_bi_in_socal New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    A just society is at odds with a free society.
     
  15. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Utterly idiotic...and not even remotely true.
     
  16. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California
    You can preserve the sanctity of the freedoms of others by creating an environment where the criminal can satisfy his desire to be happy without harming another. Technology is close to virtual situations, where people could live whatever experience they would enjoy. The worst criminals can be sequestered from the rest of the population until they come to terms with their act and learn from it. In a system where basic needs are eternally guaranteed, the need for criminal acts only comes from the natural desires that people have as living creatures, and so can be satisfied in peaceful and safe ways through the use of technology.

    You can appeal to a desire so basic that it appeals to both sides in the exact same way. You appeal to the desire to survive. All systems in conflict with each other will stay so until the point where they begin to merge. It is inevitable behaviour of objects within an environment to gather together for mutual survival. Symbiotic pairings of species which provide one task so they need to spend less effort on a particular aspect, such as safety. Development of cells which perform a particular purpose rather than every purpose, improving efficiency through focused ability. Planets coming in to orbit a sun to protect them from the far more intense interstellar radiation. Everything exists according to the desire to survive, so the goal should be to secure that desire. All work done, all money earned, all policies written, are in some way an attempt at preserving a given entity into the future. People, Companies, Countries.


    Because it can be. It can be otherwise. We have a wonderful system of communication and persuasive argument which we have held powerful control of since the times of the Greeks. Through the correct persuasive argument, one can appeal to both sides, and instill in them the desire for mutual cooperation for the purpose of mutual survival. We can do this because we can CHOOSE to make it happen. We can CHOOSE to make the steps towards making it happen.

    As you say, certain issues. All things in the universe seeking balance, they exist as the counterpoint to your point. Not just an opponent, but a method of learning and balancing. As you clash, often brutally, you reshape each other. Through the art of persuasion, you chip away at each others ideals, and show each other what little pieces they have wrong, and in the process learn what little pieces you may have wrong. So as factually, morally, ethically, or emotionally wrong anything may be in your opinion, it still exists to seek a balance. The intensity with which it seeks a balancing, a point of calm, is the intensity and ferocity with which you clash. This intensity is directly relative to the power of the forces drawing you closer to a point of agreement, neutrality, rest, or happiness.

    Yes, instead of sitting by, perk up and listen, offer your counterpoint to their point. I feel perhaps you would do well to understand the concept that evil can have good repercussions. It just requires a more detailed view of the situation at hand. "Evil" or "War" or "Clashing" is part of the natural process, without it, we would never be able to eventually homogenize. However, with knowledge of how this process works, we can, in knowing the goal, work towards it with the utmost of efficiency.

    Then don't, don't sit by and accept something you do not wish to believe. Prove it wrong, show this proof, attempt to prove your own proof wrong, just to be sure you're right before you tell anyone else they're wrong. Especially if you are in a mentality in which you are not willing to consider yourself wrong because you feel so right. Be as close to absolutely sure of your correctness before saying someone is wrong, in any sense of the word.

    I prefer to focus on the more positive fact of our matter. We have the technology, we have the incentive, we have the means by which to operate, we have the tools necessary in which to achieve survival and happiness. We just need to make the choice to focus on them. We should build these things, because we can. In doing so, we insure our survival, and eventually can insure the survival of others, and should we respect those others, they can join with us and aid in the survival of the whole. It doesn't matter who's fault it is.... when what can be done isn't done, there's a lot more to blame than just one man or one side.

    Does it have to be the Republicans that come up with the idea, in order to allow their admission? Can it not be an accessory? One outside the dynamic of the fight, who steps up to both, willing to carry the weight of the world and the insistence of both parties, and suggest it to them? If the argument is pure and logical enough to be reasonable to both sides, do we not advance forward as a greater civilization?

    Because people aren't willing to put up the fight to peel through their onion skin armor of reasoning. People who say everything is wrong, who are perfectly capable of making the argument don't. They don't because they're not strong or sharp enough to pierce these outer layers. This is laborious because armor that grows in response to aggression will just get thicker and thicker. Falling back into a defensive shell. But an initiating event, an appeal to the core of the onion, and it reaches forth and explodes in blossom and foliage, exposing itself, taking a risk, in an effort to survive. Do not pierce the armor by forcing through it, pierce the armor by fighting with logic and understanding, which cannot be held back by any armor.

    Because this is the way it has been, and the way it will be, until we decide to change. It will remain this way until we ascend to the next level of communion and cooperation. To do so, due to the caliber of the congregation that will take place, it MUST, in every possible sense of the four letters which compose it, be equal and balanced to all ideals. It MUST appeal to something basic enough that all ideals can work together for a common goal, while still respecting the will of others. In this situation, all ideas and incentives are accepted equally, and treated similar to fields of science. Treated with an equal demeanor and nature of mutual understanding for the benefit of the greater whole.





    The system must balance. The system will always balance. If we become peaceful with ourselves, and learn to live in balance and harmony, we must always be mindful that the system must balance. For the war between two small pieces is fought until it is resolved and they join together, only to be balanced by the war which it will begin with another piece and continue until resolved, in infinite repetition. I speak not of just Americans joining together, but all people, of the entire world, choosing willfully to aim at the lofty goal of mutual survival through mutual cooperation. A lofty view, but one easily within grasp, should we so choose it. Those cultures not ready to join are respected and let move along their own path until they decide they are ready to join. The UN without as many un-words.
     
    #16 AllHazzardi, Jan 25, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2009
  17. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    In terms of 'extreme' left I would agree. But then I'd expect you would agree that the same provision should apply to the extreme 'right'? In other words, and history will bear this out; a society cannot endure (for long) when it is rooted in any ideological extreme.

    The point being that society, and thus ultimately - when society is viewed in its broadest context - humanity may only endure when it achieves a balance between ideological poles, be they 'right/left', 'Christian/Muslim' ... i.e. to whatever label we feel is our latest cause of division.

    Only in the sense that being 'just' is meaningless without defining 'freedom'.

    Bearing in mind the above it seems to me that your placement of 'liberty' and 'righteousness' (non-religious sense I assume?) on one side and 'just' on the other, renders your own statements, somewhat at odds with each other.

    Isn't a 'just' society the outcome of a balance between 'righteousness' and 'liberty' rather than something that simply acts in opposition to either?
     
    #17 dong20, Jan 25, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2009
Draft saved Draft deleted