How to have a rational discussion

[Captain Hammer 113]

http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/how-to-have-a-rational-discussion/

[Samoray 165]

Discussions are cool but i think they can turn into arguments easily

[JohnSmith2007 353]

By this logic there have been few if any discussion here by anyone. Having said that, and noting my own predilection for stating absolutes without giving any ground, the goals here are more gotcha moments and public ridicule than anything else. That is why P & R was separated from OT.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

(should be a sticky!)

Edited March 23, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[chri'stina 190]

One of the problems is that people aren't willing to admit when they are wrong or even consider trying to reach compromises. Some here purposely want make the other people look bad. It's a sport, they won't change.

Rational discussion would also mean you don't generalize an entire political party or group of people as one way. As we see here in discussions, some really enjoy making the other side look bad so why would they want to stop if they enjoy doing it? If it's all for a laugh, it's not going to change.

[Ban Hammer 13,203]

shouldn't this be in site discussions?

[chri'stina 190]

Republican, Democrat, Independent....God bless you all!

(now it has a religious and political tone, so leave it! )

[BishopM 114]

...noobs...brings back great memories

[Captain Hammer 113]

One of the problems is that people aren't willing to admit when they are wrong or even consider trying to reach compromises. Some here purposely want make the other people look bad. It's a sport, they won't change.

Rational discussion would also mean you don't generalize an entire political party or group of people as one way. As we see here in discussions, some really enjoy making the other side look bad so why would they want to stop if they enjoy doing it? If it's all for a laugh, it's not going to change.

The irony is that people who talk in absolutes and extremes look even more foolish than the people they think they have "zinged." Once you start arguing in terms of "all x are y," it's over. You've torpedoed your point and undermined your credibility.

[Captain Hammer 113]

shouldn't this be in site discussions?

Given the tone I've seen in this forum, I thought it was fitting. Feel free to move it if you think it fits better somewhere else, I'm easy like Sunday morning.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The irony is that people who talk in absolutes and extremes look even more foolish than the people they think they have "zinged." Once you start arguing in terms of "all x are y," it's over. You've torpedoed your point and undermined your credibility.

Yep. You're fairly new here and so I guess to some of us who've been here awhile have become numb to it. There is a sort of intellectual fascism that exists in public discourse nowadays. The way that it makes sense for me is that some people find uncertainty too unsettling and so they latch on to a narrative that makes life easier to understand for them. I find that way of thinking imprisoning and embracing uncertainty of life liberating.

[Tim/Mav 305]

It is totally OK to argue about Silly things from time to time. Life is Not "Sugar and Spice and everything Nice. A true Couple will vent their feelings to who they Love and ask for reasurance. Thats What I think. IDK. But, works for me! No such thing as Love without Communicating.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The irony is that people who talk in absolutes and extremes look even more foolish than the people they think they have "zinged." Once you start arguing in terms of "all x are y," it's over. You've torpedoed your point and undermined your credibility.

Yep. Yet what you actually see is people taking pride in making unjustifiable generalisations against individuals that deliberately and maliciously mischaracterise what they believe in favour of what some preconceived stereotype suggests that they believe.

Personally, I think the moderation is going about their task in this forum completely the wrong way. Yes - you shouldn't have people cussing and disparaging each other, but IMO spending inordinate amounts of time examining the minutia of antagonistic posts across several threads is a waste of time. If you're going to have aggressive moderation - it should go the whole way and require people who participate in P&R discussions adhere to a very specific code of behaviour that limits the use of the forum only to people who can participate without losing their temper and has zero-tolerance for infractions.

[Captain Hammer 113]

Yep. You're fairly new here and so I guess to some of us who've been here awhile have become numb to it. There is a sort of intellectual fascism that exists in public discourse nowadays. The way that it makes sense for me is that some people find uncertainty too unsettling and so they latch on to a narrative that makes life easier to understand for them. I find that way of thinking imprisoning and embracing uncertainty of life liberating.

Same here. I don't enjoy arguing or discussing an issue with somebody who is so entrenched in their own way of thinking that you can visibly see them getting angry at you for challenging their own deeply held world view. Like anyone else, I have my own strongly held opinions, but I readily admit I don't have all the answers.

It might be fun to have some "devil's advocate" threads. Somebody who is typically known for usually taking one side of an argument, to take the other, and vice versa. I mean, if we're resolved to these discussions never changing anybody's mind, then it could actually be fun.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

We also have people on this board that hijack a discussion in progress with unrelated comments in an attempt to change the subject. When called on the left turn they attempted instigate they just dance and pretend that they were contributing to the conversation. That is also an example of someone that isn't having a discussion but rather just derailing a discussion in progress.