Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

In the end you might be right. If America blows up into another civil war it might be just the remedy to the current situation down there. On the other hand it could just cement the bad guys in power and subdue the rest of the population for good.

Its a crap-shoot in my opinion; ergo I'd try and avoid it just now.

[edit on 8/11/2009 by wayno]

reply to post by wayno

I grant you these are individual choices. My concern is that posters may be prevented from making their case for whatever position they hold in the most emphatic and arresting manner.

I value the readership that ATS attracts and I'm willing to grovel the way Alex Jones does to George Noory, simply to get the access to the audience. The issues are that important to me, and really, I'm confident the hearts of the three amigos are in the right place on this. In the end, it is their house and I will abide by the T&C.

I can't help wondering though, if history would have been significantly different if some kind of revolt with teeth in it had erupted under Hitler. Why didn't it? Somehow I think that it was Josef Goebbels more than the Gestapo who really kept a lid on things.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
My concern is that posters may be prevented from making their case for whatever position they hold in the most emphatic and arresting manner.

That is my hope.

Making one's case in the "most emphatic and arresting manner" isn't necessary. Making one's case in a clear and effective manner is much more important to civil dialog and self-education.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Making one's case in the "most emphatic and arresting manner" isn't necessary. Making one's case in a clear and effective manner is much more important to civil dialog and self-education.

In the parlor yes. In the seminar room yes. In the hurley burley of political debate, or in the market place of ideas, emphatically no. I think it depends upon how seriously one takes the issues. I don't regard them as simply matters for polite, academic discussion.

reply to post by ipsedixit


While I can appreciate your sentiment (I really can), I would point to the 9/11 truth movement's most "in your face" advocates as being a direct cause for the ruination of that movement. The division and fracturing of the dissenters is easy to attain when the participants are all yelling and screaming at each other over the non issues rather than intelligently and civilly discussing the issues.

The reality is the masses aren't interested in having their current beliefs, no matter how wrong they may be, insulted. It is much easier to introduce someone to a new perspective/reality with calm, intelligent and fact based dialog. Nobody likes being scolded or screamed at.

If the goal is to truly win the minds of the masses, treating them to the real issues without all the distraction that easily ensues when the fur starts to fly is a much better approach.

When the personalities or the "parties" become the focus it is at the expense of the focus being on the issues. That makes for GREAT opportunities to create deflection and division, which, by the way, is exactly how it's been done for years.

Springer...

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I think it depends upon how seriously one takes the issues. I don't regard them as simply matters for polite, academic discussion.

How could there possibly ever be any good reason to avoid polite discussion.

Your stance makes no sense, and -- in my opinion -- is one of the more severe root causes of the current American political climate.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by ipsedixit
My concern is that posters may be prevented from making their case for whatever position they hold in the most emphatic and arresting manner.

That is my hope.

Making one's case in the "most emphatic and arresting manner" isn't necessary. Making one's case in a clear and effective manner is much more important to civil dialog and self-education.

I remember a quote from years back "He who shouts first has lost the argument".

I will ask why there seems to be no middle ground? Americans seem to be completely polarized by health care, no one appears to be asking "where does universal health work"? or "how can our model be the best"?

As an outsider from Australia we are a "first world" country with universal health care and an envied lifestyle, not that our system is ideal, but it does work fairly well.

So why has "socialized health" become tagged with Communism?

On ATS, Yes

Originally posted by ipsedixit
In the parlor yes. In the seminar room yes. In the hurley burley of political debate, or in the market place of ideas, emphatically no. I think it depends upon how seriously one takes the issues. I don't regard them as simply matters for polite, academic discussion.

The entire point of this thread is that ATS is not a place for "hurley burley", no matter how controversial the subject may be.

We routinely consider issues that most forums won't even permit. We're here to weigh in on the "fringe" and share our perspectives.

When some of us make the tragic mistake of assuming our own convictions are important enough to trump the rights of others, our entire community suffers, and what might have been an opportunity for reasonable discussion of an important topic predictably devolves into a tedious exercise in pointless stupidity.

ATS is better than that. That's the message. It's the message the owners are sending, and the message our members are sending through the many complaints, both public and private, we are receiving.

Even people who violate the rules complain that we aren't enforcing them strictly enough.

Guess what? We get it.

Stand against civil discussion at your peril.

People who are looking for a more visceral experience are quite welcome to avail themselves of the many, many Internet trash heaps of name-calling and trollery that so many of us are here to avoid.

But on ATS, we have standards, and they will be enforced.

Bravo ATS!
I've only recently become a member. I did so to have intellectually stimulating discussions on alternative news topics.
I will accept some theorizing, I may even do a little myself.
I am not here to call down any particular idea, group, individual, etc.
If I have nothing productive to say, I'll say nothing...
I agree with Springer when he says (I'm paraphrazing) that: Vehement 9/11 truthers have ruined the movement for the rest of us who say, "I suspect something happened that we're not being told, I don't know what that might be." Rather than, "So and so did this to create such and such affect, etc."

It harkens back to any attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, (for example.) I cannot prove or disprove God exists. Neither can you.
Anyone who says they can do either is mistaken.
Anyone who says that Theists are fools could be right or wrong, but not because of the Theology in question.
Ditto for Athiests.

Yet this happens all the time.

There is a reason for that, but I believe, by this new rule proposed, for which I concur, I am unable to express my observations that most humans are idiots, at least on ATS.

If only we we're all logicians.
(oops, I did it again...)

(I know, I know, don't respond thinking I don't get it, it's a joke...)
I'm just implying there is a fuzzy grey line on the horizon, we may never get to it, but it's there. Perhaps that is the reason ATS cries SOS....????

People are certainly not rushing to my defense here.'' Maybe there's a message in that.

All I can do I guess is point to my own posting record. I try to post cogently and don't think that posts like mine are responsible for the decline of the level of debate on ATS.

I must say that I am beginning (courtesy of the preceding posts), to see the point of the rule changes.

You citizens of a great republic might be in for a surprise though. Anyone who lives in a parliamentary democracy and has witnessed the goings on during the weekly appearance of that nest of vipers known as "question period", will know that many a polite discussion can leave people's entrails all over the floor.

The Kindest Cut Of All

Originally posted by ipsedixit
You citizens of a great republic might be in for a surprise though. Anyone who lives in a parliamentary democracy and has witnessed the goings on during the weekly appearance of that nest of vipers known as "question period", will know that many a polite discussion can leave people's entrails all over the floor.

If you can politely make a point that dramatically, you'll probably win my applause.

reply to post by ipsedixit


I'll second that.

As an avid watcher of Canada's Question Period myself, it's become painfully clear that it is just that... a period of questions which will forever remain unanswered with anything but off-topic slings and arrows or partisan talking points. Lies upon lies, deceptions beneath deceptions and all for nothing but personal gain.

It IS gut-wrenching!

Edit to add: at least here on ATS, we have the ability to debate intelligently and have our questions answered in a civil and progressive manner.

If Parliament Hill only aspired to such a high ideal.

[edit on 11/8/09 by masqua]

The Will Of The People

Originally posted by masqua
Lies upon lies, deceptions beneath deceptions and all for nothing but personal gain.

This is probably the most succinct description of a representative democracy I've ever seen.

Color me impressed.

I applaud you and the staff for their efforts on this,Bill I for one feel that if they wanna lose themselves in the illusion of the two party system let them but,don't let these partisans bring down the rest of the site.

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

I'll second that.

As an avid watcher of Canada's Question Period myself, it's become painfully clear that it is just that... a period of questions which will forever remain unanswered with anything but off-topic slings and arrows or partisan talking points.
[edit on 11/8/09 by masqua]

The same is found in Australia, Question time is worse than a schoolyard at playtime with no teachers present, in fact if it were edited down Question time would make a gripping reality TV show. Thankfully most people know it for the rancid tripe it is.

Well, I got whacked (see the red flags?) and I am not complaining.

There is a fine line to walk when trying to make a point in a politically charged subject and obviously I stepped over the line.

Here is the thing, I read the rules, I understood them, and when I posted I really didn't see anything wrong with my post. Until I got the warnings, and looked at the rules again, and I did step over the line. I used a cheap "talking point" which has been proven false to make a point.

I can tell you that the zero tolerance for this is real, and they mean business.

My apologies, for falling into the political mud and throwing it around here.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by Walkswithfish]

Soon we will just be able to type Hi 3 times here. Sensorship is bad no matter how good it's intentions.

Hi!


JMO

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
And that, my friends, is playing into the political game "they" want you to play.

So very true!
We are very much part of the problem when we allow ourselves to be players in their chess games like peons.

reply to post by Springer

The reality is the masses aren't interested in having their current beliefs, no matter how wrong they may be, insulted. It is much easier to introduce someone to a new perspective/reality with calm, intelligent and fact based dialog. Nobody likes being scolded or screamed at.

Aye Aye to that sir. That most definitely is the case for some that I have talked to about conspiracies of every realm, especially food (FDA). I think the people that resist and get insulted think we are attacking their intelligence, or being condescending, when in fact we are just trying to help. I cannot tell you how many times I got the "condescending" thrown at me, even though I portray it in a polite yet logical manner. Who they really should be getting mad at are the people that made them think that way in the first place. That way, they can use that energy to help implement "change".

I sit there thinking, "I am just trying to help people and they take it as an attack." Maybe it is my portrayal of my beliefs that seem to ruin the moment, but....

In light of this, for most my portrayal has brought enlightenment (for lack of a better word), but I think it is impossible to please everyone. The new "rules" will be great for the majority, but there will most likely always be a minority that are not pleased.

Anyway, ttyl






[edit on 14-8-2009 by Unlimitedpossibilities]