Thread: So I got irritated recently.

Most of probably did not know or care, but I recently took a short break from the website. The reason was because I noticed that the arguments I was getting involved in were more and more inane. And it got me to thinking, is there really a point to be arguing? Is anyone's mind ever changed on anything? Nope. We just argue AT each other. There's usually not even any intention to argue about anything relevant. People will always start making posts and inevitably we'll get stuck on some stupid minutae or semantic argument. For example, we'll be discussing Social Security and suddenly on the twenty-fourth page you realize we're arguing about the thickness of tin cans in 1947 versus the thickness today and you're like "what the hell? Could everyone just STFU?" Or we'll be talking about education and you can't ever say that anyone is lazy or stupid. You have to pretend like everyone is hard-working and "the system" or "society" failed, even though everyone who has been in any school knows that's not true.

Most of my posts say "this is hilarious ..." because most everything people say IS hilarious. Everyone tries to make things complicated when they're very simple. Like I'll be talking to someone and it'll be:

Them: Everyone deserves a living wage. So we need to increase the minimum wage.
Me: OK, but then employers won't hire anyone. They're not going to pay $15 for a job that's worth $2.
Them: Those greedy corporations! We need to create a union and force them to hire people!
Me: Fine, now the company goes out of business and everyone is unemployed.
Them: Then we need to give them unemployment.

Every one of their ideas leads to another problem and that's solved by another idea that creates another problem. All because they're terrified of real life. Like, I'll never be able to tell them that a pension is silly. You're living for twenty years and getting paid even though you're not working. That's realistic. Or if I say that they get all insulted like "what else are we supposed to do??" And they're not kidding, either. So I've come to the sad conclusion that there will always be people who work and there will always be people who try to live off the work of others. There will always be people willing to compete and there will always be people who cannot compete. There will always be people who take responsibility for their actions and there will always be people who refuse to.

Thing is, I realized also that in the short term, maybe they'll win. Who knows? But in the long term, they'll lose. You can redistribute money, but at some point you run out of other peoples' money to spend. Then what? Like, we're in this argument about Social Security and how it's "not a Ponzi scheme." It's a terribly stupid argument, to be quite honest. I sort of don't care any more. Why? Because at some point it'll end and then all the people who were arguing on the other side will just be sitting there and going "what? What happened?? How ...?" Of course, at that point they'll immediately try to parasitize other people in another way, but apparently that's life. Like, I used to get really worked up about handicapped placards for cars, right? You'd always see a car like that and the person in the car was completely normal. (Now, if I say that, a liberal will go "don't make assumptions, they're probably just borrowing the car from their handicapped mother!" and smile triumphantly. Game, set, match. OK, but they know they're not handicapped regardless, so why are they parking in a handicapped spot? And actually, I can't believe I'm having this argument like we have to pretend that people who aren't handicapped don't get handicapped placards even though we all know it's true.) But the point is, some people are born to be losers. That's their "win." They "won" because they got a guaranteed parking spot. Someone scores food stamps and they don't have to work, that's their "win." Now they can die happy. I mean, they're never ACTUALLY happy because they always think society owes them more and more, but you understand what I mean.

Same thing with "the corporations." I'm seriously tired of "the corporations" arguments. It's like people get hard-ons about "the corporations." There was a piece on CNN about how people didn't have "jobs" until "the corporations" made them. They just grew their food and LIVED! Then "the corporations" came along and shackled them in cubicles, I guess. Who the hell cares? If you hate the corporations so much, stop buying stuff from them. Or make your own retarded corporation and run it the way you want. But those are never options. It's always like "no, I don't have to!" OK, dudes, whatever. Do whatever you want.

Or it'll be like we argue about how healthcare in America is worse than in Cuba. "I have a study!" OK, uh, I have real life. Like, I don't know why you think I give a crap about your study, which isn't even about quality. It's like some survey about "equity" or "fairness" of healthcare. I hear people argue that you could fly to India and get surgery and it would cost half as much as getting it in America and be better quality. Cool. So why don't you fly to India and stop bugging me? "No, I don't have to!" What are you, like five years old or something? Actually, I wish they were five years old. Instead, I'll be having this conversation with someone and they're like fifty-three and I'll be amazed that they made it that long. Hey, it's cool that you have a survey that 100% of Americans are against pollution. Last time I checked, they're all polluting and littering and urinating in the streets. "I know, but they agree with me, they just don't know how to do it! So I'll make them!" Yeah ...that's the conclusion to take from that study. Let me guess. Harvard? Brown? Dartmouth?

And half the time, people don't even have the balls to say what they mean. Like, if you don't mind welfare recipients using drugs, just say so. Don't make some phony-ass argument about the topic where we dance around the REAL issue like imbeciles for fifteen pages. What a waste of time. If you're that terrified that someone will be turned off by your ACTUAL stance on the issue, maybe you should reconsider your stance. Instead, everyone is all tricky like "oh, I'll just incrementally implement this ...it works all the time!" Yeah, I know. It actually does. But that doesn't make you any less of a douchebag. Congratulations.

Okay....first let me say...I've been HIGHLY enjoying your posts. I like your positions, and your ability to articulate them.

However....I am a little confused....you say you "recently took a break"...but then end that you ARE "taking a break." I'm confused.....did you take a break....come back....and now re-breaking? Either way....I'd hate to see you stop posting....so, please.....just pick fewer fights. You don't have to fight EVERY dragon. You might just be suffering dragon fatigue, right now. Stick around, and keep posting.

Kind Regards!!

Maybe your coming to the same realization that we all have to come to. People are formed by genetics and environment.

The only thing you can do is learn ... maybe you have an unformed opinion and you form it based upon presentation or information you did not previously know.

Debaters opinions are pretty well formed. We are what we are.

Originally Posted by kwilliam10

Okay....first let me say...I've been HIGHLY enjoying your posts. I like your positions, and your ability to articulate them.

However....I am a little confused....you say you "recently took a break"...but then end that you ARE "taking a break." I'm confused.....did you take a break....come back....and now re-breaking? Either way....I'd hate to see you stop posting....so, please.....just pick fewer fights. You don't have to fight EVERY dragon. You might just be suffering dragon fatigue, right now. Stick around, and keep posting.

Kind Regards!!

I took it and now I'm back. I just forgot to get rid of my sig, lol.

I also enjoy reading what you have to write, CBM, even when we disagree.

I wonder if you're sort-of new to this whole political/philosophical forum arguing. Not trying to be condescending here but some of us have been arguing in this format for years and years and those diversions and distractions are pretty much how things go.

It has been my observation that either side of the argument gets closed down (by a better argument or a more rational argument), the last thing most of us (but DEFINITELY not me ... of course) want to do is acknowledge we got bested. So we typically start the argument down a different path that is SORT of similar to the original one on which we got bested, hoping no one notices. For example, any time anyone brings up that Obama encouraged us to tone down the hate rhetoric but then accuses Obama of fostering the hate rhetoric, the response is almost always something to the effect "...well, the REPUBLICANS do it TOOOOOO!" They can't deal with the accusation so they try to divert the discussion down a path they believe they CAN deal with.

I look at it this way: If they cannot respond to my posit, their argument fails, regardless of whether or not they acknowledge it. Any time my question or accusation or argument goes unanswered (and particularly when they try to divert the topic away from what I've asked/argued), it is a flag to me that they cannot respond.

It's all good, anyway.

Originally Posted by Good1

It has been my observation that either side of the argument gets closed down (by a better argument or a more rational argument), the last thing most of us (but DEFINITELY not me ... of course) want to do is acknowledge we got bested. So we typically start the argument down a different path that is SORT of similar to the original one on which we got bested, hoping no one notices.

I agree, but it's more than that. It's how people aren't even mature. Like, this isn't intended as a "call out," just as an example. I was discussing with someone on here how America's healthcare was dead last in "studies." Right? This guy was throwing out studies like nobody's business. So I looked at the studies and they're all surveys on things unrelated to quality. I point that out. Now, an adult would be like "oh, OK." But instead it's just like "...so I see you have no response to my argument!" At that point, I'm like "well, f**k, I could have been doing something more productive, like watching television, this whole time. Or drowning myself in my toilet."

Originally Posted by Good1

It has been my observation that either side of the argument gets closed down (by a better argument or a more rational argument), the last thing most of us (but DEFINITELY not me ... of course) want to do is acknowledge we got bested.

Indeed, it's pretty rare around here for someone to admit they're wrong, or misinformed, etc. It takes a big person to admit it. Sometimes I wish we had more big people.

Coming here to change people's minds is a brutal and frustrating task. Coming here to learn the positions of others and perhaps teach them a little bit about your own position can be highly rewarding, though.

Basically, viewing this place as less a competition and more of an exchange of ideas may result in one needing to take less breaks.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Coming here to change people's minds is a brutal and frustrating task. Coming here to learn the positions of others and perhaps teach them a little bit about your own position can be highly rewarding, though.

Basically, viewing this place as less a competition and more of an exchange of ideas may result in one needing to take less breaks.

Says the dirty pinko commie zombie lover.

I dunno. Learning about some of the positions people have horrifies me, frankly (and of course I realize that they feel that way about my positions).