[Tanada]

Presenting links in support of your Point Of View POV is the best way to convince those who are convince-able, for those who cling to their position despite all evidence threats and shouts will not change anything except bring you down to their level.

The old saying is, those who argue with a fool first lower themselves to the fools level, after that the fool has already won.

Argue with them, debate with them, keep putting up links supporting your POV and refuting their POV. Don't shout, threaten, or call them names, it demeans your argument and makes their argument look better as a result.

Anything you really believe in should be worth the effort of both expression and supporting arguments. It does not matter if what you believe in is Peak Oil, Climate Change, Overpopulation, Politics, Self Medication, or any other topic. You will get many more converts arguing in favor of your belief than you will ever get screaming and name calling. I don't discuss my faith on here because I consider doing so inappropriate here and arguing the science is much more productive. I do argue my Libertarian viewpoint on here because I have been making those arguments based on social science and fundamental rights of individuals.

Argue from your heart, and put links supporting your argument whenever possible. That will get far more people to understand where you are coming from than angry words will ever accomplish.

[SeaGypsy]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedi ... r_argument

This page in a nutshell: Editors in the midst of a dispute should not offer links to policy, guideline, or essay pages in place of reasoned rebuttals. Doing so may intimidate newcomers, may be perceived as insulting regular editors, and may confuse everyone.
In the course of a disagreement on Wikipedia, participants may post links to policy and other pages in place of reasoned arguments. Even when done in good faith, such actions may sometimes be confusing to the readers, especially when linking to large and complex page. It may be unclear which of the many points in that page one intends to refer to. Such behavior may also be interpreted as equivalent of saying "talk to the hand", i.e. uncivil.

I'm not saying I don't get your intent with this post Tanada, just that it's often a fine line in online debates, link flooding is obnoxious. I enjoy your ability and others here to surmise positions based on your studies and often links are helpful, but I find writers who give a school kid argument then back it with links to some inane garbage they stumbles on somewhere irritating and boring. If someone wants people to actually open a link, what they are saying should be interesting enough in itself to warrant the effort. Also being a bit of a keyword freak I rarely have any trouble finding links on my own, but of course this ability varies a lot. Often I will search for controversy as a matter of course on any interesting topic, something people often forget to do when posting less than thoroughly researched material and links.

[Subjectivist]

I was taught that to be able to refute someone elses argument in a debate effectively the best method is to first state the opposing POV and then refute it step by step. Otherwise you are not refuting anything, you are just stating a different viewpoint without showing that you disagree with the first viewpoint for valid reasons.

[KaiserJeep]

Well, minus the sarcasm, that's the truth. One can find a link supporting just anything on the web. Including web pages run by members (and past chairmen) of the IPCC, on both sides of the AGW debate, to choose just one example. Most of the information on the web is BS, presented as history, fact, and truth.

Make no mistake, I agree with your sentiments over the prose here.

[Pops]

The longer I tap the more convinced I am that people aren't convincible. I used to think it was psychological (whatever that means) but I linked a story a day or two ago showing evidence of actual physical differences in levels of distaste - disgust between people and how it can predict ideology.

In case you missed it
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... y-ideology

[Plantagenet]

The longer I tap the more convinced I am that people aren't convincible. I used to think it was psychological (whatever that means) but I linked a story a day or two ago showing evidence of actual physical differences in levels of distaste - disgust between people and how it can predict ideology.

IMHO its highly unlikely the world is divided into two types of people who for innate physical reasons become Rs and Ds.

The division is much more about culture and local norms. People who live in cities tend to be Ds, people in rural areas tend to be Rs. But people from true-blue urban centers like SF sometimes turn into Rs when they leave the city behind and move to a farm or mountain cabin or such (I know this transition didn't occur with you, Pops, but it does happen). And it goes the other way too----lotsa Rs turn into Ds. Inner city blacks tends to be 100% Ds---but some inner city blacks who spent time in the military become Rs---again cultural, not biologic.

The physiological test you linked to doesn't seem to me to be genetic or innate in any way. It was a cultural difference. For instance the psychologist showed people pictures of people eating live worms....Ds didn't even notice while Rs looked at the pic and sneered. Doesn't this just mean that Ds are OK with eating live worms, while Rs aren't especially interested in eating live worms? Thats a cultural difference, not a biologic one, the way the French eat frogs and snails and Brits eat beef and Belgians eat frites and Americans eat Cheetos.

[Quinny]

Thought this was relevant:



https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

[KaiserJeep]

Some of us never were D's or R's, and never will be. Some of us think that partisanship is our biggest problem.

What do you have against Third Parties, anyway?

[Keith_McClary]

The division is much more about culture and local norms. People who live in cities tend to be Ds, people in rural areas tend to be Rs.

Cartogram skooshed so voters/area is constant.
(For larger maps, click on images at linked site.)

For instance the psychologist showed people pictures of people eating live worms....Ds didn't even notice while Rs looked at the pic and sneered. Doesn't this just mean that Ds are OK with eating live worms, while Rs aren't especially interested in eating live worms?

Redneck comment on sushi: "Around here we calls that bait".

[Plantagenet]

Some of us never were D's or R's, and never will be. Some of us think that partisanship is our biggest problem.

What do you have against Third Parties, anyway?

Nothing---in fact I generally vote for third party candidates.

But Pops postulated above that Ds and Rs differ physiologically based on a psychology experiment that included showing people pictures of other people eating live worms---the Ds were OK with it and the Rs weren't.

Clearly if biological determinism is controlling the way people look at the world, then it would be impossible to change people's minds without changing their brain structure or DNA. But if its just a cultural difference, then people could change and adapt to new circumstances.

I'm arguing its all cultural. Probably even Rs could get used to pictures of people eating live worms if they moved to hip and groovy urban centers and encountered things like that all the time the way urban Ds do.


Relax Rs---its just a gummy worm.

[Sixstrings]

Some of us never were D's or R's, and never will be. Some of us think that partisanship is our biggest problem.

I was a lifelong R, then became a D after the real estate crash and my own personal life was affected by that. So, I'm one of those Republicans that made Obama's elections possible.

I'm like, divorced from the Republican Party. I registered D and vote straight D out of spite. Only thing that could bring me back is national security stuff -- at the end of the day, I can handle my own "domestic policy" but I cannot handle the world. Gotta have a president to do that.

I'm actually a swing voter at the presidential level. I always vote for the winner. Doesn't mean I go with the flow, it's just that wherever that swing vote is going I'm just one of those people and I'm moving that direction for the same reasons.

If I were wealthy, I guess I'd still be a Republican. I guess it really comes down to that, and that's why R's have been losing in recent elections because they're out of touch and the economy is bad. Our country has changed so much. Foodstamps are so common now. It's not because people are lazy, it really is because the wealth has so shifted to the upper tiers.

Republicans just don't get it. And the only way they can win any more presidential elections is if Putin or someone else scares folks.

Regarding Tanada's OP, I agree and nice post. I do the links just because that's always been the norm on this forum, and I appreciate when people link because it's interesting to see some sources. But I don't care if anyone links, if someone says something I didn't know then I can google it.

As for debate.. I jump into the other's viewpoint, I'm interested in truth, I actually want to be proved wrong. This is what supreme court justices do. It's a good way to reason. You play devil's advocate, you argue both sides, to make sure you really understand the issue at hand.

[KaiserJeep]

Yes, OK, I agree - as long as we are polite and respectful of other viewpoints.

[sparky]

.
On the subject of Pops "The longer I tap the more convinced I am that people aren't convincible"
That's sound pretty true
there is the well observed fact that childhood form one person outlook for life
"Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man" is a reputed maxim of Jesuit educators

in my observation , people get more conservative with advanced age
maybe because they tend not to swallow bullst so much
or because tossing out a whole life experience for a new concept is just too hard

There is something about the media itself blogs aren't very cooperative , really
just a flood of individuals metaphorically screaming at empty digital space

for one I would put reason at the center of my judgment ,
logic and life experience second
experts opinion somewhat above ranting

[Plantagenet]

.
On the subject of Pops "The longer I tap the more convinced I am that people aren't convincible"
That's sound pretty true
there is the well observed fact that childhood form one person outlook for life
"Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man" is a reputed maxim of Jesuit educators

The English have a similar saying..."as the tree is bent so the tree is inclined". And its definitely true for most average people with average intelligence. They are content to accept whatever they are taught as children.

However, there are many examples of older people completely altering their viewpoint and coming to accept alternative viewpoints. Often these are highly intelligent people with an open and inquiring intelligence. The classic example of someone completely changing their viewpoint is Saul of Tarsus---the chief rabbinical prosecutor of Christians, who had a sudden conversion and became Saint Paul---apostle to the gentiles.

[Shaved Monkey]

.

in my observation , people get more conservative with advanced age
maybe because they tend not to swallow bullst so much
or because tossing out a whole life experience for a new concept is just too hard

Or they have more to lose and/or dont want unexpected change they dont have time to adapt to.

[AgentR11]

ok.. I'm confused. I'm obviously "R", but the image shown on motherliberal of the worm eating didn't disturb me about the worms... I was however disturbed at the lack of food prep and presentation, and they obviously still had some dirt on them, so someone doesn't know how to properly wash food before serving it. Maybe in motherliberal's world they don't have sinks in their kitchens??

[Pops]

I think the D n R part is overemphasized in the lib/con discussion, at least historically. Parties are made up for convenience and to win elections and have been skewed by slavery since the beginning.

Going way back before the civil war, D's were farmers and poor industrial workers in the cities and slaveholders in the south. In fact they were strong everywhere except the industrial NE. Thats where the Rs were invented as an anti-slavery party, but they were also mostly business oriented, well off, educated; the opposite of Ds. Since the Rs were anti-slavery that left the Ds beholden to the segregationist south even after the war.

Things started to change with the New Deal as the progressives came to the front but really changed with Goldwater & Nixon's Southern Strategy, and was sealed by LBJ with the Civil Rights act, desegregation, etc. The Solid South - Segregationists - were a valuable block of votes for the Ds and had been since the civil war. Kennedy wasn't out there marching around with MLK because he couldn't afford to piss off the south - regardless of what he might have actually believed. It took LBJ to do that.

The southern and rural Rs & Ds switched sides overnight (or at least in a couple of cycles) after the Civil Rights act, just as LBJ said they would. Now poor white southerners and rural folks everywhere vote for Romney even though the Rs economic policies may be diametrically opposite to their interests.

So obviously, R & D aren't interchangeable with lib vs con, the parties switched sides entirely on this fundamental American topic in just the last 40 years.

[KaiserJeep]

Lest we forget:

The D party was founded by Andrew Jackson, and the basic party planks were Pro-Slavery, Pro-Indian relocation (i.e. Indian Reservations), and Pro-Segregation. As late as my childhood in the late 1950's and early 1960's, the D's occupied the extreme Right Wing of American politics. Note that it is still the case that virtually every KKK member self-identifies as either a D or a Nazi. JFK began the liberalization of the D's but self-identified as a Conservative - and behaved that way.

The R party was founded by Abraham Lincoln on an Anti-Slavery and Anti-Relocation and Anti-Segregation platform. Which is why this plaque at Northeastern Illinois University is so ironic:



The Administration at NIU has always maintained that they meant only that Lincoln was a proponent of Democracy, but those sneaky TV reporters have called them on that, neither the NIU students nor the Administration when interviewed on camera knew the actual party that Lincoln founded was the R's.

[Plantagenet]

Now poor white southerners and rural folks everywhere vote for Romney even though the Rs economic policies may be diametrically opposite to their interests.

The world is a crazy place, isn't it.

Similarly, poor inner blacks vote for Ds even though the Ds economic policies may be diametrically opposite to their interests, as shown by the fact that the highest levels of black poverty, income disparity and racial segregation in schools are all found in liberal cities.

It just goes to prove my point. D vs R, lib vs. con, etc. have more to do with culture and local political traditions rather than physiologic or biologic factors.