Sorry to open up yet another political thread, but this has more to do with stopping the runaway bashing of each other ad nauseum. There's an election around the corner (in case you hadn't heard) and these threads aren't going away any time soon.
We're never going to sway anyone's thought or opinion or action if we're just hurling opinion back and forth. The complaint that Jon Stewart had about CNN's Crossfire applies exactly in the same way here. Typically we're not debating anything here, really, but stating opinion one way or another, thus participating in the well-termed 'partisan hackery'. This is, of course, an intense source of frustration as this sort of exchange does nothing but assert more heated opinion further divided by opposing views. This form of communication we have on the forums lends itself very well to that sort of behaviour. I'm just as guilty as anyone else. So, I would like to point out a few things.
Debate needs to be supported by relevant information to back a claim. To say that one's opinion is more valid than another's is useless without a credible source of supporting information. I'm not talking about www.freakinhippe.org as a credible source. Clearly there's bias there. I'm talking academic stuff backed up with numbers or clear high-order thought.
We need to enter discussion with at least a few common assumptions. This, I see, is the major problem with our arguments. For example, one consistent group of people on the forums seem to operate under the assumption than the war in Iraq is generally good, and beneficial for Iraq and the world. The other side doesn't. If we then pursue a debate about US foreign policy, and one side thinks the US is hurting the world while the other side thinks they're helping, well, we're never going to do anything but participate in the aforementioned hackery and slinging of opinion, and spin in circular arguments.
So...please...if we can change one thing with these political threads, can it be to try to maintain a certain level of objectivity and proper, supported argument instead of doing a complex version of 'my dad could beat up your dad', cause, really, that's all we're currently doing.
Cheers,
James.
|
