What kinds of arguments on DU -- if any -- are good?

[Boojatta]

What kinds of arguments on DU -- if any -- are bad?

Of course, the word "argument" can be interpreted in different ways. I leave the interpretation open.

[fenriswolf]

1. i like

arguments where intelligent thought is exchanged back and forth between open receptive people.

I hate discussing he-said she-said BS against people who are entrenched in their candidate and inundated with propaganda because the primaries have become more of a warground then a political process.

[Mnemosyne]

2. Arguments lacking personal insults and attacks, even of the subject being

discussed, would be a great start to having "good" arguments.

With the exceptions of * regime members, they deserve it. Evil bastards.


on edit - came back to rec., could be a very interesting thread.

[Echo In Light]

3. That's pretty vague. I tend to be on a different wave length than most, so...

When I try to get a dialogue going re socially relevant topics, I suspect it falls on deaf ears...that, and I'm likely on a handful of "ignore" lists lol

I like a good, collective participation of ideas and views being tossed around. The problem with many "arguments" per se is that I usually find too many will adhere to just one side or the other, with both "sides," ideologically speaking, stemming from vested interests who have powerful social positions/platforms for shaping and determining public opinion to suit an agenda. So it ends up being like this, "I believe in Santa Claus! versus "Well I believe in the Easter Bunny!"

[stillcool]

4. Those arguments that provide facts

previously not evident. So many arguments ensue when facts are distorted or interpreted to suggest something other than what was said. Speculation, divining intent, predicting future events, using inflammatory language, mis-information etc., all lead to arguments quelled by facts.

[Echo In Light]

5. Valid point..the problem lie in who determines "facts" w/mainline media that LIES/OMITS/OBFUSCATES

Millions of people can believe a lie, yet for them, it's not a lie. Therein rests the crux of "manufacturing consent" and establishing "necessary illusions" within this failed democratic experiment.

[stillcool]

10. True. But thank God for the Internets.

and sites like this that point me in the right direction, and consistently require me to question my beliefs. I don't know how anyone can not be changed by the easy access to information, that has never before been available, or attainable. I have to believe that we are all teachers, and we are all students, and that good must come from all of this.

[UTUSN]

6. A widely held (& wrong) belief is that most of what goes on here is about "facts".

Actually, (I'm pulling the number out of the air: ) upwards of 90% of the posts (as opposed to the o.p.s with links) are feelings, impressions, likes, dislikes, opinions, dicta, imperatives, emotional erruptions, and the like.


Obviously, flaming is horrible, usually 20 bullies attacking one or two. Because one of their cherished beliefs (not "facts") has been challenged. Nasty, unfair, petty, juvenile, mean.


I detest "arguing" the way I detest haggling. It is futile, most of all, because usually neither side is going to convince the other, emotional beliefs are clashing and not to be budged, you cannot relax and trust, must be on guard and paranoid about the next attack coming from all sides, there is no equanimity.


Most "agreement" comes from playing the "ain't it awful" game, somebody stating the outrage, then others chiming in with more examples and reinforcement.


I'm trying to learn how to avoid getting flamed. Sadly, part of it means biting-one's-tongue, withholding a legitimate opinion that challenges the local conventional consensus. But another way is to pick and choose where to chime in: One of my biggest self-traps is to jump into a hostile thread. That is, if it is a thread of Hugo fans, I need to let it go in favor of joining in on an anti-Hugo thread. It's like when the Skeptics would attack the Astrologers: I have a little fondness for the latter, while also (mostly) believing with the Skeptics, but got deep in defending the Astrologers, saying, "Why not let them have THEIR threads where they can chat without being attacked."

[Echo In Light]

9. Conspiracy deniers are usually vicious, derogatory, use name calling, while supposedly "sensible"

"Because one of their cherished beliefs (not "facts") has been challenged. Nasty, unfair, petty, juvenile, mean."

[TZ]

16. ...

Yeah. Us rationalists that want proof of stuff before we believe. Nasty angry people we are. TSk. Asking for peer reviewed data or evidence. Whats up with that?:eyes:
(btw..I have never ONCE had a mod warning or anything deleted that I didn't ask to be deleted, so I guess that makes me REALLY juvenile)
Careful with that kind of broad brush...thats the kind of statement that indeed starts nasty flame wars.

[alfredo]

7. The ones that contain a chicken, a road, and a chainsaw.

[lonestarnot]

8. Good: Si' se puede. Bad: No se puede.

Good: Black, white, gray, green, yellow, red. Bad: colorless. Good: factual, thought provoking, representing acts that can be taken for the greater good. Bad: Erroneous facts, no option for thought, representing acts that benefit the few. But some arguments are strictly for amusement and I like those too. :P
}( :P

[UTUSN]

11. Sorry. "Threadkiller" is my middle name. n/t

[Boojatta]

12. Now you have become death, destroyer of threads? Perhaps it can be resurrected.

If you seriously think that you kill threads and you wish to stop doing that, then try including -- in each of your posts -- an open-ended question at the beginning, at the end, or both.

[Jed Dilligan]

13. Arguments between people who are honest

about what they are supporting.

[Boojatta]

14. Do you mean "who disclose everything that they support" or

do you mean "who do not deliberately provide false or misleading information about what they support"?

[Lars39]

15. Your threads always leave me with the feeling that you use DU

as some sort of lab.

[Boojatta]

17. DU is my Labrador Retriever (or lab for short), retrieving opinions and preferences and dropping

the info into my lap.

[Akoto]

18. The ones that really peeve me are ...

Those that are obviously flamebait. The original poster says about the most incendiary things one can think of, and when called on it, is in total denial. "Oh, no, it was hardly a flamebait post. It's just the truth!" O8)

[TahitiNut]

19. Bad: Posts sprinkled with "you" and "your." Worst: Posts about "we" vs. "you."

It's really not rocket science. The most inflammatory posts have sentences with "you" as the subject and usually include ASSertions about "you think" or "you believe" - the pretense of mind-reading. Malicious mischaracterizations of another's positions are appalligly frequent on DU ... exceeded only by the bullying rhetoric of gang-bangers who cloak themselves in the "we" armor.

[Boojatta]

20. Kick

[Boojatta]

21. Kick