Face-idiots arguing about political things they don't understand-book is pissing me off tonight.
- Thread starter Jacco
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes you are, just not by arguing in the way people are societally and evolutionarily geared to argue. If you view it as a I must be proved right contest, you're just going to raise their defenses and most likely push them further away from your side.Owyn_Merrilin said:
There are three ways to push people towards your opinion(that don't involve brainwashing, torture or strategic reorganization of brain matter.) The first is to argue with them but offer them an easy out where the idea is really both of yours, because you maneuvered the conversation to force them into stating ideas you can parley into 'being on your side' of the discussion. If you're sure to compliment them, not back them into a corner, and basically bend over backwards to make them feel like they are smart but they are smart because their position is a lot like your position; then you can subtly change the way they think.
The second is the same method as push polls. You present data with very specific wording while appearing non-biased in order to 'push' them towards a certain point of view. This is a difficult method if you know the person, unless you're pretty much their only source of news.
The third is to take their position but take it to the extreme. Which is a method that again works best if you don't know the person. Preferably over the internet where you can slowly make the lie more believable. You appear to agree with them at first, but slowly keep making more and more crazy statements. This causes them to start to move away from 'your' and their idology. Then you start bringing it back in. The dislike is planted so you start to tone down the crazy pushing your peg on the political spectrum closer to their peg. Using the same mechanism why arguing against people does not work, you force them to move their beliefs farther from yours in whatever direction you wanted.
Wait the party platforms are different? Oh you mean how Democrats are like lets give tons of money to big pharma and Republicans are like no lets give tons of money to oil companies. And the Democrats are like we should totally blow up this tiny country and then the Republicans are all like no we should blow up this different tiny country instead. And then one party is like we should print a bunch of money using the FED and pump it into the economy using Keynesian economics and not complain about it, and then the other party is like no we should print a bunch of money using the FED and pump it into the economy using Keynesian economics but were going to complain about what we are doing while we are doing it. Then we can propose the same bills and then attack the other sides bill for doing exactly what our bill does. Now lets all join hands and never decrease government funding because we rely on the votes of government servants.Owyn_Merrilin said:
the The Walking Dead is boged down by that shit head kid who seems to have less brains then the damn walkers
Reverse psychology can be fun!Jacco said:
Now then...
{1} I have no great opinion over highlighters.
{2} The Dead Walking IS a good show.
{3} I hate sunflower seeds.
{4} Not all that bad. I had a few good classes of it in college. Ya learn something.
{5} I don't really watch him.
Or, you know, the one party that stands for things like making sure the rich pay their fair share of taxes, protecting women's rights, and making sure everyone has access to health care, vs. the other party that stands for cutting taxes on the wealthy while making everyone else take up the slack, destroying women's rights, and letting poor people die because they can't afford insurance[footnote]Edit: I know this looks biased, but you could probably phrase this differently to make which side looks good and which side looks bad switch. You'd just need a different set off personal biases than I have to do it, and I'm not gonna bother to try to fake them. I'm sure a person with the right set of biases can look at this and switch in their own biased language that fits the same set of facts, because at least they would already recognize the differences.[/footnote]? The only reason people think they're identical is because they're in grid lock. If either party was actually able to implement its platform, nobody would be claiming that they were the same. Because they're not.Mycroft Holmes said:
As far as arguing with people, you're wrong. For example, you have convinced me of exactly nothing. Nor have I convinced you of anything. Pointless, isn't it?
You know, I wish i could enjoy mmo's, but i don't.... 
Rage was a pretty fun game, flawed but fun.
Also have any of you heard of the comedian Doug Stanhope? Just wondering.
Rage was a pretty fun game, flawed but fun.
Also have any of you heard of the comedian Doug Stanhope? Just wondering.
I'll drink to that. *raises glass of rootbeer*
The most painful conversation I've had in recent memory was someone telling me that voting (even on single issues) is pointless. Apparently all laws are decided on by a council of old men in dark robes seated around a fire of burning virgin hearts or some shit. Why is it everyone forgets they are the governing body most of the time, not the people who were elected? Even if they bribed their way into office, ultimately these figureheads have to review bills written and signed by the public.
Oh wait, I wasn't supposed to go on a political tangent. Okay.
I find sneezing weirdly satisfying.
The most painful conversation I've had in recent memory was someone telling me that voting (even on single issues) is pointless. Apparently all laws are decided on by a council of old men in dark robes seated around a fire of burning virgin hearts or some shit. Why is it everyone forgets they are the governing body most of the time, not the people who were elected? Even if they bribed their way into office, ultimately these figureheads have to review bills written and signed by the public.
Oh wait, I wasn't supposed to go on a political tangent. Okay.
I find sneezing weirdly satisfying.
WHy is sociology a terrible field to study? I'm studying it right now for my Child and Youth Care course.Jacco said:
In what country? In the U.S., the people occasionally write some of the laws at the state level (it depends on the laws of the state in question; some allow it, some don't), but for most part the laws are written by people in the legislature. Or at most by a lobbyist working closely with the politician who sponsors the bill. This is especially true at the national level, where there really is no mechanism for the common person to write something and get it made into a law.hooksashands said:
I'm not saying that voting doesn't matter (it very much does) but I'm curious about a country that actually has the people writing the bills and the politicians voting on them, instead of just having the people vote on the politicians.
I'm so excited I finally get to debate you, Owyn. "I've been waiting for this pain!"Owyn_Merrilin said:
U.S. legislation is basically divided into 4 types: regular bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions and simple resolutions. Of these four, only simple resolutions require no signatures from congress. The two branches of congress must agree on something for it to become a law, but this doesn't mean the ordinary citizen is powerless to see his or her legal precedent pushed through the system. This is why the expression "Write your congressman!" is oft used. You're right, a mere individual is going to have a hard time getting something passed on their own... Which is where signatures come in. If you can grab everyone's name possible and compile it under a document calling for immediate proposal, then forming a special interest group or being close to a bench-cozy adviser isn't strictly necessary. Of course, it will still need to be approved by committee...
Consider
You have a son. He goes to study law. He works his way up from district attorney to senator.
Since your own flesh and blood--a human being instilled with your values--is now the one in the position of authority, do you support them individually or hold true to the ideology that they should review everyone's opinion to inform their choices? Keep in mind, some of these public opinions will be strange, crazy, dumb or outright wrong.
At that point you're getting into what I was talking about with lobbyists writing a bill and a congressman sponsoring it. It happens, it certainly happens, but it's not at all common for the general public to do. Paid lobbyists, yes. Tom, Dick, and Harry, not so much.hooksashands said:
Edit: As for signature drives, show me a single instance of it happening in national politics. It happens all the time in state politics (I walked past someone asking people to sign a petition to allocate some tax money to beach restoration just a few minutes ago), but not in national politics.
Sharpie highlighters are the best highlighters you can buy.
Agreed
The Walking Dead is a good show.
Agree, but you should quantify it as either "superb" or "wicked cool". Good isn't nearly powerful enough.
Sunflower seeds are the best snack food.
Disagree, nachos with cheese and spicy salsa... if your hung over, nothing beats day old pizza. nothing.
Sociology is a terrible field to study.
If by terrible you mean, good luck finding a job, agreed. It does have many interesting sub fields however.
MovieBob can be arrogant sometimes but I like him well enough.
If he wasn't pompous, I wouldn't respect him. The movie critics that aren't opinionated jerks sometimes I can count with the fingers of one hand.
HIJACK HIJACK HIJACK!
Agreed
The Walking Dead is a good show.
Agree, but you should quantify it as either "superb" or "wicked cool". Good isn't nearly powerful enough.
Sunflower seeds are the best snack food.
Disagree, nachos with cheese and spicy salsa... if your hung over, nothing beats day old pizza. nothing.
Sociology is a terrible field to study.
If by terrible you mean, good luck finding a job, agreed. It does have many interesting sub fields however.
MovieBob can be arrogant sometimes but I like him well enough.
If he wasn't pompous, I wouldn't respect him. The movie critics that aren't opinionated jerks sometimes I can count with the fingers of one hand.
HIJACK HIJACK HIJACK!
No one pays their fair share of taxes, that's why we have a ballooning national debt that will either force us to follow in Germany footsteps by paying it off in worthless currency and then reinventing the DeutschDollar or cause a systematic collapse of the entire economy starting with huge gas price inflation when oil gets taken off of the dollar standard. The problem isn't under taxation its over spending. Taxes on the poor are the lowest they have been since 1941.Owyn_Merrilin said:
The republican's have not hurt women's rights at all. They talk a bunch of talk because they want votes and then they go ahead and do whatever the hell they want. Exactly like the democrats do. There's a few crazy congressmen who actually believe in that shit and get disproportional news coverage because of it, but the vast majority of Republican politicians don't really give a shit and are just posturing for election. There have been plenty of times in recent history when they had more than enough power to force such laws through, but they don't actually give a shit to do so.
Both parties are trying to make sure people have access to healthcare. And they only superficially disagree on how to arrive at that. Go look at some of the more famous bills proposed over the past several years. They go back and forth copying provisions from each other, and then acting like it was their idea and attacking the other party for using provisions their party came up with. It's like a political meri-go-round.
Challenge accepted. Wait that was a challenge right?Owyn_Merrilin said:
Or, you know, the one party that stands for things like not robbing it's citizens with threats of jail-time, protecting fetal rights, and making sure everyone has access to health care, vs. the other party that stands for raising taxes on the wealthy so that we can drop more cruise missiles on school children, murdering babies, and making sure everyone has access to health care.
The reason people think they are identical, is because they vote for the same sweeping policies together. It wasn't Republicans who forced the Iraq war on the poor defenseless Democrats, it was both parties that did it. It wasn't Republicans who legislated banking loans to force behavior that caused an economic crisis, it was both parties. The points the parties 'disagree' on are the points that they don't even give a shit about because they are really just looking to get votes.Owyn_Merrilin said:
That's why when the Republicans had full control: they didn't force women to become breeding chattel, let the elderly starve to death, or start hunting poor people for sport.
That's why when the Democrats had full control: they didn't health bills, and they didn't raise taxes on the wealthy. In fact if you have 200,000 income every year, Obama wants to extend your Bush era tax cuts. And the changes he wants to make only allow for taxable income up to 379,150$ and the change is from 35% back to 38.6. Holy shit somebody stop the presses, the democrats want to charge the super wealthy an extra 13,649 $, man economy saved guys. I mean wow, we can like hire another doctor to run tests for people for a whole month before we have to fire him, we can hire a teacher for like 3 months. Yeah that's totally not posturing for re-election, it really matters.
Because they don't really care about any of that. They only care about staying in power(by acting like they care about those things and that the other party does not,) bombing brown people to expand our empire, and using the FED to print money and effect legislation to help their friends in the banking industry, prison industrial complex, military industrial complex, pharmaceuticals, or oil companies.
There is maybe 5% of congressmen who actually give a shit about the stuff you are talking about. They are way outnumbered. And everyone is so entrenched in a broken way of thinking that we will never elect people who have actually different ideas on how to run things, like the libertarian party, the green Party, the constitutionalist Party, the Socialist party.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. And if I was, you either wouldn't know it, or would think I was trying to convince you of something else. I very rarely actually care to convince anyone of anything, I prefer to let people make their own mistakes, and then taunt them about it.Owyn_Merrilin said:
There are several rational explanations for this. One is that the average citizen doesn't understand all the "legalese" necessary to change an existing statute or create a new one. Thus aides are given the task of translating an idea into a law. Another reason policy is shaped through an administrative body is because letting sovereign states create their own laws is already dangerous enough. Allowing mere individuals to have that same sovereignty risks "tyranny through majority," or in other words allowing laws to be made by popular consensus, which can have devastating effects on society and the economy.Owyn_Merrilin said:
Regarding your Edit:
Okay, You got me. There are currently no ballots (referendum/initiative) that effect national (federal) politics in the U.S. However, there is a proposal headed up by senator Mike Gravel called National Initiative For Democracy (NI4D) which allows ordinary citizens to have a say at the same level as entities like Congress, the Judicial Branch, and even the President.