The Rules of Debate

[Mountain Man]

The irony continues. Btw, I agree there is not a lot of nuisance in liberal thinking, but I do consider your thoughts to be a big nuisance to human progress.

I obviously meant "nuance", but apparently autocorrect didn't like that word. I really need to stop posting from my phone.

[Mountain Man]

Let's try this again:

There is some strong logic here but I'm not convinced that the "left" and "right", broadly speaking, are as monolithic and as intellectually consistent as this would assume. Consider the American right; a pastiche of social conservatives, libertarians, and military hawks. These stances in their purest forms actually conflict with one another so I see a series of uneasy alliances. Thus, the concept of this monolith being uniformly right or uniformly wrong doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Liberals tend to see the world in rather simplistic black-and-white terms. There's not a lot of nuance in their thinking.

[Zymologist]

I hate to say it but Jaecp is right. There is a lot of abject rudeness and childish name calling on the part of a few conservative posters that nobody says a word about, but the moment any non conservative says something, they come under instant fire for their tone.

We need to heed what Jesus said about planks in our eyes.

I'm a libertarian, and I see about equal dismissiveness and smugness from both the liberals and conservatives around here (with very few exceptions). Frankly, I find the entire exercise* completely pointless and unpleasant.

*Exercise meaning political discussion. I'd rather talk to a KJV-only fundamentalist about Bible versions than talk to the average poster around here about politics. I'd get more of a hearing from the KJVO guy than from the average poster around here from either side, and that's not really an exaggeration.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm a libertarian, and I see about equal dismissiveness and smugness from both the liberals and conservatives around here (with very few exceptions). Frankly, I find the entire exercise* completely pointless and unpleasant.

*Exercise meaning political discussion. I'd rather talk to a KJV-only fundamentalist about Bible versions than talk to the average poster around here about politics. I'd get more of a hearing from the KJVO guy than from the average poster around here from either side, and that's not really an exaggeration.

Yes, it is an exaggeration. Have you talked with KJOs? And if you find the entire exercise completely pointless and unpleasant, then why are you even reading, much less commenting on, anything in Civics? Why not spend your time in an area you enjoy more?

[Zymologist]

Yes, it is an exaggeration. Have you talked with KJOs? And if you find the entire exercise completely pointless and unpleasant, then why are you even reading, much less commenting on, anything in Civics? Why not spend your time in an area you enjoy more?

I usually do, and yeah I have talked to KJVOs. I've pretty much given up on any kind of actual discussion in Civics, but I guess I got stupid for a minute there.

The conservatives around here think that the liberals are smug and dismissive (and they're usually right). The liberals think that the conservatives are mean and dismissive (and they're usually right). Both groups think that judgment doesn't apply to them, and both groups think libertarians are stupid and ridiculous.

I posted on a whim, in the heat of the moment. I do that occasionally, and almost always regret it. Partly because most of the time I post something unwise, and partly because nobody ever seems to want to listen to me, unless I agree with them*.

*To be clear, I have condemned myself for this same behavior multiple times on this site, so I really hope nobody thinks this is hypocrisy or self-righteousness on my part. I guess...I'm a non-confrontational guy, and I just want to get along with people and live peaceably. That doesn't seem possible with politics, and it frustrates me. My post was an expression of that frustration.

[Zymologist]

I'm a libertarian, and I see about equal dismissiveness and smugness from both the liberals and conservatives around here (with very few exceptions). Frankly, I find the entire exercise* completely pointless and unpleasant.

*Exercise meaning political discussion. I'd rather talk to a KJV-only fundamentalist about Bible versions than talk to the average poster around here about politics. I'd get more of a hearing from the KJVO guy than from the average poster around here from either side, and that's not really an exaggeration.

I went about this the wrong way. This is more like what I should have said:

How about, instead of blaming "everyone but me" for the political atmosphere, we all do some self-reflection? Is that unfair to ask? It would seem obvious to me that if everyone started caring more about their own behavior than everyone else's, that might go a long way in fixing what people are complaining about in here.

I'm a selfish hypocrite who's just as prone to dismissiveness as anyone, so I absolutely apply this to myself also.

[Christianbookworm]

Humans are stupid! Or foolish. Or dumb. For being the smartest critters on the planet we still aren't that bright. Or pride lowers one's intelligence. Or at least makes you very foolish. Why can't we just figure it out together instead of arguing? Stupid mammals!

[The Thinker]

Hillary has gotten a bump in the polls since the debate:

CtpOIOdVMAAEvOe.jpg

Fox news poll shows Hillary won the debate:

CtpQPbpW8AAeWhH.jpg


CtpPvdFWEAAHByQ.jpg

[One Bad Pig]

The conservatives around here think that the liberals are smug and dismissive (and they're usually right). The liberals think that the conservatives are mean and dismissive (and they're usually right). Both groups think that judgment doesn't apply to them, and both groups think libertarians are stupid and ridiculous.

Libertarians are not wholly wrong; the federal government is much vaster than it needs to be.

[Bill the Cat]

Hillary has gotten a bump in the polls since the debate:

As I expected. She has been debating for 30 years. He hasn't. She had rehearsed answers and he spoke more off the cuff. No surprise that she did better where memorized responses count more.

[Mountain Man]

Hillary has gotten a bump in the polls since the debate...

Depends on which polls you look at. Trump has closed the gap and even taken the lead in several critical states like Florida, Colorado, and Ohio, and several daily tracking polls continue to show him beating Hillary by a comfortable margin.

[The Thinker]

Depends on which polls you look at. Trump has closed the gap and even taken the lead in several critical states like Florida, Colorado, and Ohio, and several daily tracking polls continue to show him beating Hillary by a comfortable margin.

Can you show any national polls since the debate that Trump has won that are scientific?

[The Thinker]

As I expected. She has been debating for 30 years. He hasn't. She had rehearsed answers and he spoke more off the cuff. No surprise that she did better where memorized responses count more.

Except that some people on this site are convinced #TrumpWon.

[Bill the Cat]

Except that some people on this site are convinced #TrumpWon.

Depends on what you consider a win. Hillary did exactly what she and other career politicians do. And I'm fed up with rehearsed piles of manure.

[Christianbookworm]

Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump are both terrible candidates. Why can't we just come up with a list of required competencies/skills/traits, develop an algorithm to determine all the decent candidates, and randomly select the person for the job? Simple! Though there may be privacy concerns, but we can just look at people's public profiles and records!