Political Flame Wars

[Ginkasa]

Know what irritates me? People who argue about politics

a) like their arguments are going to change anything
b) like they know absolutely how to perfectly run EVERYTHING and that anybody who disagrees with them is dead wrong
c) all the BLOODY time; as in, they bring it up where ever and whenever they can, just to argue.

I can understand debates and intelligently giving points and counterpoints to defend your own opinion. That's great. That's constructive. However, most political debates that I've seen (which, admittedly, isn't a whole lot) turn into nothing more than name calling and trash talk. Nobody ever "sees the light" and changes their opinion, and the people who actually matter in the politics are never going to hear or read your arguments. So what's the point?

Alright, a recent example I've is at a forum I go to. Someone started a topic about how more Americans are killed in car accidents everyday than the total number of people who died on 9/11 (in the Twin Towers, anyway).

So there was a discussion about automobiles accidents going on, when out of nowhere a guy starts talking about how America could afford a nationwide public transportation service if we stopped sticking our noses in other people's businesses.

He turned a topic about car accidents into a political debate for no reason than to apparently bad mouth America. I have no problem with him not approving the war in Iraq, but just what did he prove by insulting it? America's not going to stop the war just because he doesn't approve. The same "Pro/con America" argument has been done to death already by tons of people. A lot of times the same people argue it more than once.

And the arguments never change. Maybe there's a few difference sin recent events being pulled out to defend one viewpoint from another, but that's just the details. The actual mechanics of the argument is always the same, it never changes, and yet people always seem to jump in whenever they can to spout off their political views and start an argument.

Sometimes I wish America WOULD just sit quite and leave everybody else alone just so some of these people would just shut up.

***

Note: this isn't directed at bouncer directly - I only used him as an example since he's the most recent and what spurred me to write the rant.

Just FYI.


*shrugs and walks away*

[Seth]

lol. A blog for me! An this doesn't irritate me. I know you're just venting.

He turned a topic about car accidents into a political debate for no reason than to apparently bad mouth America. I have no problem with him not approving the war in Iraq, but just what did he prove by insulting it? America's not going to stop the war just because he doesn't approve.
I should just verify that I made that comment in a light hearted mannor. The issue about not enough money for developing a national transit system lead immediately, in my mind, as to why there is not enough money/resources.

What's on the news all the time? The war. I don't know about everyone else but constant bombardment of an issue causes me to think about it often. I maybe shouldn't have thrown in the comment about America's involvement worldwide in general but I feel that the war being fought in Iraq specifically relates to an absence of funds.

b) like they know absolutely how to perfectly run EVERYTHING and that anybody who disagrees with them is dead wrong You shouldn't imply that anyone who has an opinion thinks that others are dead wrong. That's a pretty brash conclusion. What exactly in my post showed that I think that I can run a country perfectly and that other people are DEAD WRONG because they have a different view? Do I have to through in an 'IMO' with every sentence as to avoid people labeling me as a know it all?

and no hard feelings on my behalf cuz your cool and i like to vent as well.

[Typhoid]

I know these cancel eactother out, but i dont want to be a prik here, but you say America wont change their opinion for what Bouncer said...But do you think bouncer will change his from what you said? Its his opinion, if he disapproves of war, he disapproves, maybe he was using a recent example. Maybe not.

People either feel one way or another, and making a thread about it, to tell people you dont like it wont really change it too much.

You wanna know what irritates me?
People who dont give other peoples opinions a chance and shoot it down as if its wrong and as if their own is a fact.


People here need to loosen up alot, some people go off for no reason and at nothing, and its kind of embarrasing for them......IMO

[Ginkasa]

Did nobod (or...the two of your who replied) read that little bottom part there? This wasn't about bouncer specifically. Not all of it applies to him. It was juat his post that spurred me into posting it.

Its not personal. Don't think it is.

And I'm not trying to change bouncer's or anyone's opinion. I don't care a spit about their political views. What I do care about are the political threads that continue on for multiple pages and get this close from becoming flame wars (see, something that doesn't relate to bouncer's post).

And I also dislike people who shoot down other people's opinion without giving them a chance. That's part of what I was complaining about. In most of the political debates, the sides have already been chosen before anyone said a word, and the people on opposite sides have already decided the people's opinions on the other side are stupid and uninformed. I hate that.

I never, however, shot down bouncer's opinion (this is related to him). I didn't say I disagreed with it or said it was stupid or misinformed. What I didn't like was that he brought up the war and what American's doing wrong for no apparent reason then to....spout off what America's doing wrong. It's great he feels so; I don't really care how he feels. I didn't see any reason, however, why he had to bring it up in a discussion that was evolving into something unrelated to the war in Iraq.


*shrugs and walks away*

[Seth]

And I also dislike people who shoot down other people's opinion without giving them a chance. That's part of what I was complaining about. In most of the political debates, the sides have already been chosen before anyone said a word, and the people on opposite sides have already decided the people's opinions on the other side are stupid and uninformed. I hate that.
I guess I just don't like it how the above was said as a result of one of my posts. It seems like you're relating my post with the 'shooting down of other people's opinions without giving them a chance.' I know it's directed at a number of people but was said with what seemed to be a connection with my post. I can't see how you can draw so many conclusions from what I had posted.

I never, however, shot down bouncer's opinion (this is related to him). I didn't say I disagreed with it or said it was stupid or misinformed.
While you didn't try to shoot down my opinion, you accused me of, in essence, being a know it all.

I only used him as an example since he's the most recent and what spurred me to write the rant.
This comment leads me to believe that my post reflects every negative thing you said in this thread.

What I didn't like was that he brought up the war and what American's doing wrong for no apparent reason then to....spout off what America's doing wrong. It's great he feels so; I don't really care how he feels. I didn't see any reason, however, why he had to bring it up in a discussion that was evolving into something unrelated to the war in Iraq. In my first reply in this thread I explained why I brought up the war in Iraq. Do you see this as invalid?

I don't want this to go anywhere bad but I just have to say that I feel you've mistakenly correlated me with a bunch of negative things that were somehow linked to my post in the car crash thread. Respond to this so you can give your views and then we'll call it at that.

[Typhoid]

I dont mean to direct this at anyone, cuz im not.

But from now on, when someone argues, i think they should get this picture.




http://www.ncaabbs.com/funnies/general/domesticthug.jpg







And thus concludes this session

[Professor S]

I know a good amount of that was aimed at me, as I refuse to shut up on political threads, but then again I make a point not to.

The reason why I do so is because I feel there is a lot of misinformation that goes around on the media about many things, including drug abuse, conservative values, the Iraqi war and the war on terror to name a few.

I can't help what the media portrays, but I sure as hell can help it when I feel misinformation is being spread to the masses here. I know a lot of what I say is very one sided, but that is basically to give the other side of the coin and try and inspire people to see and research the other side of the coin and not just believe whatever the TV tells you.

I will admit to getting heated at times, but that generally only happens when I am forced to repeat different facts, and I repeat facts, over and over again. The recent Michael Moore thread being the most recent example of this. An validity of an article written by the Wall Street Journal... I repeat... the Wall Street Journal... was thrown out by those who did not want to beleive the facts that it stated, and that is the ONLY REASON it was thrown out. That makes absolutely no sense.

Now while my political tirades may annoy you, I will not be stopping any time soon. If someone posts a political thread I feel is rediculous, I will not hesitate to make my feelings on it known as the alternative, in my view, would be to allow misinformation to reach more people than it already is.

I do think I've done a much better job very recently at avoiding long drawn out flame wars. I've decided just to make my point thoroughly and then let people make up their own minds. I did go on for a couple posts in the Green Party thread, but each post had different information and there were no insults whatsoever.

[Ginkasa]

I guess I just don't like it how the above was said as a result of one of my posts. It seems like you're relating my post with the 'shooting down of other people's opinions without giving them a chance.' I know it's directed at a number of people but was said with what seemed to be a connection with my post. I can't see how you can draw so many conclusions from what I had posted.

I didn't draw all those conclusions from what you posted. That was just what motivated me to actually typing what I was thinking.


While you didn't try to shoot down my opinion, you accused me of, in essence, being a know it all.

You were presuming to know how exactly America should be run.

This comment leads me to believe that my post reflects every negative thing you said in this thread.

I apologize. It was supposed to lead you to believe that most of it didn't apply to you. You were...just what motivated me to type out all my thoughts of all (well...most) political debates I've seen.

In my first reply in this thread I explained why I brought up the war in Iraq. Do you see this as invalid?

I'll give you that.

I don't want this to go anywhere bad but I just have to say that I feel you've mistakenly correlated me with a bunch of negative things that were somehow linked to my post in the car crash thread. Respond to this so you can give your views and then we'll call it at that.

*thumbs up*


*shrugs and walks away*

[Typhoid]

You say he was presuming to know what America should do, and you seem pretty confident in presuming you know what he was talking about. He never directly said, " This is what they should do" or anything like that, to my "vast" knowledge. Both of you are presuming things. :p

[Dylflon]

I feel the same way you do Ginkasa. That's why I gave up on political debates. I tried my vest just to state my opinions or feelings but others have fun trying to make me look like an idiot for thinking something. I'll admit I got carried away sometimes too...but...yeah.