Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
Any thoughts?
I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.
The first thing you need to realize is the demographics of the Internet is not an accurate representation of mainstream thought. Just by it's very nature, the Internet leans decidedly left. Most people who have the Internet are politically left-leaning. Conservatives always tend to be the last ones to adapt to new technology. Therefore, the 'general' Internet population is more left than the 'general population'. Believe it or not, there are hoards of conservatives who wouldn't even know how to turn a computer on, and aren't interested in learning.
From there, you have to realize message boards, blogs and forums are vehicles for people to express their views on issues. The most passionate expressers are generally liberals. This is because of the nature of liberalism. It's what liberals do. It's their reason for being liberal. Granted, everybody is different, and this is not to say that libertarians and conservatives, even anarchists, are not represented on a typical board. Generally speaking, the most vocal and active participants are left-leaning individuals because this is their gig.
So you are never going to find a general public forum on the Internet that isn't skewed noticeably to the left. Each year, that demographic changes slightly because more and more conservatives are becoming 'tuned in' to the modern communications era. There are also numerous activist groups who have libertarian views, helping to 'even the field' for the right. But traditional 'tea party type' conservatives are still pulling up the rear.
You made a rather interesting observation. You say that you find the poorly reasoned arguments are mostly from conservatives. I am a conservative and I find most of the poorly reasoned arguments are from liberals. Isn't that peculiar? Of course, I have read thousands of arguments from conservatives and liberals and I can't say that I've ever heard one state: "Let me give you my unfounded and uninformed opinion on this..." I've never heard anyone left or right admit: "This is my poorly reasoned argument for... whatever." I mean, generally speaking, I think most people post what they believe is a reasonable well-founded argument. So I believe your observations may be a result of your particular political leaning. Just saying.
Now, the way you go about dealing with a poorly-reasoned argument is to do as I do and dismantle the sucker. Point out the poor reasoning by showing where it is poorly reasoned. This will require more than your opinion, you'll have to actually find sources to support your counter-arguments and stuff, and this isn't always as easy to do as you would think. Mostly because the Internet is full of every kind of opinion imaginable, and some are very poorly-reasoned arguments or outright fruit cake nuttiness. And whoever you are debating with is likely going to criticize your sources as being biased, whether there is merit or not.
In short, my recommendation to you is to basically... get over yourself. Stop thinking that your opinion or viewpoint is some divine piece of wisdom the world cannot live without. That your reasoning skills are the greatest thing to ever come down the pike, and those who don't share your opinion are somehow lacking in reason. It could be that your perspective is just different, and you haven't tried to see things from another point of view. It could be the other person's reasoning is based on a different set of circumstances or life experience.
Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
Any thoughts?
I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.
You have never stated anything other than your lies about being a "nuclear watch officer", a position which doesn't exist in the US Navy. So you are both a liar and a moron.
For those who haven't ever seen Westwall's true face showing through the mask, he would be guy who will belittle someone's military service if he gets angry at them.
You are making me dizzy watch you spin circles trying to justify why you regard someone you know almost nothing about so plainly not rational. Namely, me, whom you have NO consequential information about, yet repeatedly affirm I am not rational.
How is that respectful dialogue? From a psychologist? I've come to expect higher standards from people who study interpersonal relationships. I guess youre an exception. Or do you want to try again, this time, returning my respect for mutual benefit? We can but that choice is up to you, I can't make it for you.
You harp on the word attack like it makes the some meaningful demarcation between rational and not. An "attack" in the context I used it is quite appropriate. It means a challenge or "attack" on a position, an objection; it is simply an argument against something or viewpoint. What do you take "attack" to mean? How does my use of "attack" become the defining characteristic of my lack of rationality?
Boss, has it occurred to you that "although two positions may be in conflict with each other, neither one may harbor a single truth..."? I'm talking about your liberal/conservative false dichotomy. That's because any doctrine so rigid and accusatory as yours only serves to destroy the very thing it sets out to produce: in your case, namely, "liberty and freedom." This is the case with all dogmas that do not adapt to change or accept people for who they are without labeling or mis-judging.
You define a liberal more like a church goer of the past millennia defined non-believers: heretics, not rational. People with whom you cannot hope to get along so just dismiss them from entering the dialogue altogether. You said "you are liberal and not rational." By excluding and defining me as being "not rational" you therefore have no need to erect a sound, cogent defense of your beliefs. That is incidently what critical thinking and rationality is, as I've tried to exhibit through critiquing your poor sweeping generalization of libs and cons, but it was read as some "not rational" approach for some reason.
Yet, your whole diatribe against conservatives is aggressive ad hominems.I said the critical thinking was lacking from most, but correctly noted that conservatives tend to use aggressive language, more ad hominems and general cursing/yelling.
I said the critical thinking was lacking from most posts, including liberals, but correctly noted that conservatives tend to use aggressive language, more ad hominems and general cursing/yelling.
I am sorry for not being respectful. I would like for you to demonstrate where I was dis-respecting you so I can change that so I don't repeat that mistake. But the actual evidence for my disrespecting of your is less important because whether I genuinely disrespected you or not, you believe that I did. So I want to say I'm sorry and would like to put that in history.
Are you really a psychologist or are you lying? Maybe we could do a trust exercise by you telling the truth. I'll accept what you say so speak the truth.
But once we do that, what's the point? How can I become rational? What do I need to believe, if anything?
I said the critical thinking was lacking from most posts, including liberals, but correctly noted that conservatives tend to use aggressive language, more ad hominems and general cursing/yelling.
I am sorry for not being respectful. I would like for you to demonstrate where I was dis-respecting you so I can change that so I don't repeat that mistake. But the actual evidence for my disrespecting of your is less important because whether I genuinely disrespected you or not, you believe that I did. So I want to say I'm sorry and would like to put that in history.
Are you really a psychologist or are you lying? Maybe we could do a trust exercise by you telling the truth. I'll accept what you say so speak the truth.
But once we do that, what's the point? How can I become rational? What do I need to believe, if anything?
Yes, because actually fucking caring is proof of hostility.
I actually started a thread about this one, fuckwad. I pointed out that only idiots take things on a message board personally. If you need help, and I can give it, I will. I have actually done that, which actually impressed somebody on this board that thought I hated them because I argued with almost everything they said. I am not hostile toward you, if I was I wouldn't talk to you. Grow up, then come back here and get some real adult conversation.
I said the critical thinking was lacking from most posts, including liberals, but correctly noted that conservatives tend to use aggressive language, more ad hominems and general cursing/yelling.
I am sorry for not being respectful. I would like for you to demonstrate where I was dis-respecting you so I can change that so I don't repeat that mistake. But the actual evidence for my disrespecting of your is less important because whether I genuinely disrespected you or not, you believe that I did. So I want to say I'm sorry and would like to put that in history.
Are you really a psychologist or are you lying? Maybe we could do a trust exercise by you telling the truth. I'll accept what you say so speak the truth.
But once we do that, what's the point? How can I become rational? What do I need to believe, if anything?
Here is what you said:
"...each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives."
I pointed out that I observe the poorly reasoned arguments mostly coming from liberals. So why are our perceptions diametrically opposite? As I explained, it's because of our perspectives being different. You somehow took this as an offensive attack. In your first reply to me, you indicated I lacked maturity in my critical thinking. You've made all kinds of other accusations toward me, and I have defended in response. Now you want to know how you've disrespected me?
Yes, I am really a psychologist. I can't imagine why I would need to be dishonest about that. My response to this thread was genuinely to help you answer your questions and do some personal introspection.
As for how you can be rational, I think you should start by not reading things into posts that aren't there. Don't assume that an opinion or observation is an attack or challenge, and is generally presented by someone who believes it to be well-reasoned and thought out. They have a different perspective than you. Perhaps they even have different information? Finally, learn how to listen. Stop yourself from responding emotively without having some degree of empathy or understanding for what the other person has said.
In his defense, he seems like the scholarly type...:
I am sorry that offended you or was taken as disrespect. I wish you would have kept reading my full post. I tried to be clear what my point was...that I am not speaking about people (cons or libs) but merely that arguments and posts I've read have lacked proper reasoning while correctly denoting hostility posts, aka poorly reasoned posts, tended to come from cons. I obviously did not make the claim that all conservatives and their viewpoints are invalid, so I hope you didn't take it that way. I was rather explicit:
"I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often [poorly] founded..."
I was explicit that my interest was not in who was giving the poorly reasoned posts but rather if this represented America? You responded to this and the rest of your post was not based in objective reality but a narrative that sounded pleasant to you, so I called you on it. But sensitive people like yourself become quickly reactionary and now that I'm aware that you judge people lightening fast, I will be extra careful not to disrespect you or criticize any of your views again.
I am sorry that offended you or was taken as disrespect. I wish you would have kept reading my full post. I tried to be clear what my point was...that I am not speaking about people (cons or libs) but merely that arguments and posts I've read have lacked proper reasoning while correctly denoting hostility posts, aka poorly reasoned posts, tended to come from cons. I obviously did not make the claim that all conservatives and their viewpoints are invalid, so I hope you didn't take it that way. I was rather explicit:
"I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often [poorly] founded..."
I was explicit that my interest was not in who was giving the poorly reasoned posts but rather if this represented America? You responded to this and the rest of your post was not based in objective reality but a narrative that sounded pleasant to you, so I called you on it. But sensitive people like yourself become quickly reactionary and now that I'm aware that you judge people lightening fast, I will be extra careful not to disrespect you or criticize any of your views again.
I've taken the liberty to highlight some of the more disrespectful comments you've made about me here. You began by assuming I had not read your entire post. I assure you, I did read it all. Then you accused me of not basing my viewpoint in objective reality and simply giving a narrative of what sounded pleasant to me. Finally, you finish off with a flurry... I am over-sensitive, reactionary, and judge people lightning fast. This is all coming from my rather candid and frank observations, which apparently offended you.
Previously, I stated that you are not rational, and this is an example of what I am talking about. You've automatically drawn assumptions that just aren't true. You throw those assumptions out there as if they are indisputable or obvious without specifics and without backing your assumptions up with anything other than emotion. Rational people do not behave this way.
I appreciate you falling all over yourself to apologize to me, but it's not necessary, I have not complained. I am accustomed to people not being rational here. Posters offend me all the time, and it doesn't bother me in the least. I am simply responding to you in an attempt to help you find your way to reasonable and rational discourse. I think you honestly want to get there but you don't know how. Others are weighing in here and they don't want to give you that benefit of the doubt, but I haven't judged you based on their posts. I only judge you based on the words you choose and what you have to say. And when I say I judge you, I don't hold it against you. None of us are perfect, we all have our flaws.
I said the critical thinking was lacking from most posts, including liberals, but correctly noted that conservatives tend to use aggressive language, more ad hominems and general cursing/yelling.
I am sorry for not being respectful. I would like for you to demonstrate where I was dis-respecting you so I can change that so I don't repeat that mistake. But the actual evidence for my disrespecting of your is less important because whether I genuinely disrespected you or not, you believe that I did. So I want to say I'm sorry and would like to put that in history.
Are you really a psychologist or are you lying? Maybe we could do a trust exercise by you telling the truth. I'll accept what you say so speak the truth.
But once we do that, what's the point? How can I become rational? What do I need to believe, if anything?
Here is what you said:
"...each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives."
I pointed out that I observe the poorly reasoned arguments mostly coming from liberals. So why are our perceptions diametrically opposite? As I explained, it's because of our perspectives being different. You somehow took this as an offensive attack. In your first reply to me, you indicated I lacked maturity in my critical thinking. You've made all kinds of other accusations toward me, and I have defended in response. Now you want to know how you've disrespected me?
Yes, I am really a psychologist. I can't imagine why I would need to be dishonest about that. My response to this thread was genuinely to help you answer your questions and do some personal introspection.
As for how you can be rational, I think you should start by not reading things into posts that aren't there. Don't assume that an opinion or observation is an attack or challenge, and is generally presented by someone who believes it to be well-reasoned and thought out. They have a different perspective than you. Perhaps they even have different information? Finally, learn how to listen. Stop yourself from responding emotively without having some degree of empathy or understanding for what the other person has said.
I am sorry that offended you or was taken as disrespect. I wish you would have kept reading my full post. I tried to be clear what my point was...that I am not speaking about people (cons or libs) but merely that arguments and posts I've read have lacked proper reasoning while correctly denoting hostility posts, aka poorly reasoned posts, tended to come from cons. I obviously did not make the claim that all conservatives and their viewpoints are invalid, so I hope you didn't take it that way. I was rather explicit:
"I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often [poorly] founded..."
I was explicit that my interest was not in who was giving the poorly reasoned posts but rather if this represented America? You responded to this and the rest of your post was not based in objective reality but a narrative that sounded pleasant to you, so I called you on it. But sensitive people like yourself become quickly reactionary and now that I'm aware that you judge people lightening fast, I will be extra careful not to disrespect you or criticize any of your views again.
