CDZ What makes a good poster?

[Pogo]

No. Some people use logic and some use emotion. The founding fathers argued angrily even to the drastic measure of a deadly duel. Being able to distinguish important points from logic OR emotion is a talent as important as making points.

Eggs - ackly. I'm usually more interested in how the arguments were arrived at, than what the arguments are. Unless it's a topic area I have particular expertise in, that's most of what I do here.

There's a whole lotta mythologizing going on too, or in the contemporary term "fake news/fake history", and I find myself spending inordinately massive time shooting those myths down with historical fact. I don't mind learning the history, I like it, but I do mind the idea that one can just ignore reality and reshape it to whatever one wants. If we can't agree on what reality is, we have literally no starting point.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My style of debating involves directly attacking the integrity of the point, the logic, the reasoning. Not the person. I do that to the best of my ability, but sometimes there are instances where it is warranted. One has to choose those instances wisely, or otherwise he risks being labeled a fool or a troll.

Heh, six years on this forum, I can read almost all of the posts I've ever made here and... I've noticed how much I've changed in my ideas and beliefs. I was virulently anti gay, anti liberal and anti democrat. Now, I have acknowledged my bisexuality, I find myself to be a classical liberal and, much to my surprise, I find myself despising both parties equally.

My arguments aren't driven solely on emotion and rhetoric like they used to be.

I can attribute that to forcing my mind open and not letting it be barred shut by dogmatic political views or overly rigid interpretations of my faith.

What makes a good poster? A willingness to change one's mind or views based on facts and concrete circumstances. A willingness to embrace a reality that they would rather not.

Openmindedness, objectivity. I'm talking genuine here. If you are here simply to hear (see) yourself speak, then you aren't a good poster, you are someone who needs psychiatric help.

 

[Flopper]

Trump has been threatening to close the border for months, make it harder to get asylum, and of course stop illegal immigration with his wall but he hasn't done any of those things. The only thing he's doings is encouraging migrants to come to the US while they can still get in. If he really wanted to solve his immigration crisis, he would keep his mouth shut and let his actions speech for themselves.

Threatening to close the border, etc. is not a "lie," and your your criticism of his (in)actions is self-contradictory. Want to try again?

I agree with Flopper. Don't warn them...just do it. He is encouraging more peopke to come right away so they can still get in. Like telling the enemy of war plans.

In 2016, there were no caravans of any size and apprehensions at the border were low. In Trump's first year in office, the boarder was relatively quite. There were only 2 caravans with 350 migrants. Apprehensions were the lowest in 20 years.

Then Trump began his campaign to build his impenetrable border wall followed by threats of closing the border. Meanwhile, crops in Central American were failing and economic conditions were the worst they had been in a decade. Trump began talking about cutting aid to Central American, which would make the situation even worse. Gang activity was making most of the towns in the Northern Triangle unsafe, day or night.

Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the largest of the Caravan organizers spread the word throughout Central America that Trump was closing the border and building a wall that could not be crossed. It became a now or never event for those hoping to escape. Trump got exactly what he wanted, a crisis at the border.

Trump has now put a tariff on Mexican imports to force Mexico to stop migrants. Of course Mexico is doing nothing because with summer, temperatures will rise making crossing Mexico and the the northern deserts unsafe so this year as every year, the flow of migrants north will drop. That will give Trump the opportunity to claim a victory for his policy. I expect Trump will announce he's dropping the Mexican tariffs, just in time for the election season.

 

[Pogo]

Trump has been threatening to close the border for months, make it harder to get asylum, and of course stop illegal immigration with his wall but he hasn't done any of those things. The only thing he's doings is encouraging migrants to come to the US while they can still get in. If he really wanted to solve his immigration crisis, he would keep his mouth shut and let his actions speech for themselves.

Threatening to close the border, etc. is not a "lie," and your your criticism of his (in)actions is self-contradictory. Want to try again?

I agree with Flopper. Don't warn them...just do it. He is encouraging more peopke to come right away so they can still get in. Like telling the enemy of war plans.

In 2016, there were no caravans of any size and apprehensions at the border were low. In Trump's first year in office, the boarder was relatively quite. There were only 2 caravans with 350 migrants. Apprehensions were the lowest in 20 years.

Then Trump began his campaign to build his impenetrable border wall followed by threats of closing the border. Meanwhile, crops in Central American were failing and economic conditions were the worst they had been in a decade. Trump began talking about cutting aid to Central American, which guaranteed to make the situation even worse. Gang activity was making most the towns in the Northern Triangle unsafe, day or night.

Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the largest of the Caravan organizers spread the word throughout Central America that Trump was closing the border and building a wall that could not be crossed. It became a now or never event for those hoping to escape. Trump got exactly what he wanted, a crisis at the border.

Trump has now put a tariff on Mexican imports to force Mexico to stop migrants. Of course Mexico is doing nothing because with summer, temperatures will rise making crossing Mexico and the the northern deserts unsafe so this year as every year, the flow of migrants north will drop. That will give Trump the opportunity to claim a victory for his policy. I expect Trump will announce he's dropping the Mexican tariffs, just in time for the election season.

Clear illustration of how Rump just doesn't understand human dynamics and thinks you can get a square peg into a round hole simply by sheer force.

However, this is all off the topic here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

get a square peg into a round hole simply by sheer force.

Don't need sheer force if the round hole is big enough.

You: What?

Me: What?

Everyone else: What?

I'll let myself out.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No. Some people use logic and some use emotion. The founding fathers argued angrily even to the drastic measure of a deadly duel. Being able to distinguish important points from logic OR emotion is a talent as important as making points.

Eggs - ackly. I'm usually more interested in how the arguments were arrived at, than what the arguments are. Unless it's a topic area I have particular expertise in, that's most of what I do here.

There's a whole lotta mythologizing going on too, or in the contemporary term "fake news/fake history", and I find myself spending inordinately massive time shooting those myths down with historical fact. I don't mind learning the history, I like it, but I do mind the idea that one can just ignore reality and reshape it to whatever one wants. If we can't agree on what reality is, we have literally no starting point.

Why have you been so rigorous in holding back your opinion on matters where you have some expertise?

I'm only able to find posts of your regarding matters which you don't .

 

[Flopper]

My style of debating involves directly attacking the integrity of the point, the logic, the reasoning. Not the person. I do that to the best of my ability, but sometimes there are instances where it is warranted. One has to choose those instances wisely, or otherwise he risks being labeled a fool or a troll.

Heh, six years on this forum, I can read almost all of the posts I've ever made here and... I've noticed how much I've changed in my ideas and beliefs. I was virulently anti gay, anti liberal and anti democrat. Now, I have acknowledged my bisexuality, I find myself to be a classical liberal and, much to my surprise, I find myself despising both parties equally.

My arguments aren't driven solely on emotion and rhetoric like they used to be.

I can attribute that to forcing my mind open and not letting it be barred shut by dogmatic political views or overly rigid interpretations of my faith.

What makes a good poster? A willingness to change one's mind or views based on facts and concrete circumstances. A willingness to embrace a reality that they would rather not.

Openmindedness, objectivity. I'm talking genuine here. If you are here simply to hear (see) yourself speak, then you aren't a good poster, you are someone who needs psychiatric help.

If the willingness to change one's mind is a sign of a good poster, then there are very few on this forum. Most people are not posting to change hearts and minds. They are posting to attack the opposition.

The only way you can change people's opinion is to establish a civil dialog in which you attempt to reach some middle ground. Otherwise, the opposition will not even read your posts except to pick it apart. Quoting facts and offering proof, is ineffective. There are dozens and dozens of climate change discussions filled with all kinds of scientific gobbledygook, charts, and formulas that no one reads.

 

[Pogo]

No. Some people use logic and some use emotion. The founding fathers argued angrily even to the drastic measure of a deadly duel. Being able to distinguish important points from logic OR emotion is a talent as important as making points.

Eggs - ackly. I'm usually more interested in how the arguments were arrived at, than what the arguments are. Unless it's a topic area I have particular expertise in, that's most of what I do here.

There's a whole lotta mythologizing going on too, or in the contemporary term "fake news/fake history", and I find myself spending inordinately massive time shooting those myths down with historical fact. I don't mind learning the history, I like it, but I do mind the idea that one can just ignore reality and reshape it to whatever one wants. If we can't agree on what reality is, we have literally no starting point.

Why have you been so rigorous in holding back your opinion on matters where you have some expertise?

I'm only able to find posts of your regarding matters which you don't .

"Only able", exactly. Hence the appearance of Nun So Blind.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My style of debating involves directly attacking the integrity of the point, the logic, the reasoning. Not the person. I do that to the best of my ability, but sometimes there are instances where it is warranted. One has to choose those instances wisely, or otherwise he risks being labeled a fool or a troll.

Heh, six years on this forum, I can read almost all of the posts I've ever made here and... I've noticed how much I've changed in my ideas and beliefs. I was virulently anti gay, anti liberal and anti democrat. Now, I have acknowledged my bisexuality, I find myself to be a classical liberal and, much to my surprise, I find myself despising both parties equally.

My arguments aren't driven solely on emotion and rhetoric like they used to be.

I can attribute that to forcing my mind open and not letting it be barred shut by dogmatic political views or overly rigid interpretations of my faith.

What makes a good poster? A willingness to change one's mind or views based on facts and concrete circumstances. A willingness to embrace a reality that they would rather not.

Open mindedness, objectivity. I'm talking genuine here. If you are here simply to hear (see) yourself speak, then you aren't a good poster, you are someone who needs psychiatric help.

If the willingness to change one's mind is a sign of a good poster, then there are very few on this forum. Most people are not posting to change hearts and minds. They are posting to attack the opposition.

The only way you can change people's opinion is to establish a civil dialog in which you attempt to reach some middle ground. Otherwise, the opposition will not even read your posts except to pick it apart. Quoting facts and offering proof, is ineffective. There are dozens and dozens of climate change discussions filled with all kinds of scientific gobbledygook, charts, and formulas that no one reads.

Normally because people cite facts without context and frame them around their own preconceived biases. Whether for or against an issue. Bias distorts objectivity. Emotion clouds judgement. Both lead to a person only looking for what makes them feel good as opposed to what matches reality.

For example:

If you don't like Trump, you will more than likely look for anything to justify that dislike.

If you like Trump, you will more than likely look for anything to justify that like.

If you are objective and unbiased, you would be more inclined to consider both and form your own opinion whilst using the information you gathered to justify it.

Sometimes I call people out on this forum for saying they are moderates. Moderates are objective and open minded, they don't take overtly extreme stances on either side. They are willing to listen and open their minds to opposing viewpoints without necessarily becoming offended. They are also willing to change stances based on concrete facts, evidence and observation.

I often find myself not being able to reply to most posts because of vitriol or sheer ignorance of facts. Or just for the fact that some are simply overtly childish and contribute absolutely nothing to the dialogue.

Civil dialogue is only half the battle. A rational argument is the other.

 

[Flopper]

My style of debating involves directly attacking the integrity of the point, the logic, the reasoning. Not the person. I do that to the best of my ability, but sometimes there are instances where it is warranted. One has to choose those instances wisely, or otherwise he risks being labeled a fool or a troll.

Heh, six years on this forum, I can read almost all of the posts I've ever made here and... I've noticed how much I've changed in my ideas and beliefs. I was virulently anti gay, anti liberal and anti democrat. Now, I have acknowledged my bisexuality, I find myself to be a classical liberal and, much to my surprise, I find myself despising both parties equally.

My arguments aren't driven solely on emotion and rhetoric like they used to be.

I can attribute that to forcing my mind open and not letting it be barred shut by dogmatic political views or overly rigid interpretations of my faith.

What makes a good poster? A willingness to change one's mind or views based on facts and concrete circumstances. A willingness to embrace a reality that they would rather not.

Open mindedness, objectivity. I'm talking genuine here. If you are here simply to hear (see) yourself speak, then you aren't a good poster, you are someone who needs psychiatric help.

If the willingness to change one's mind is a sign of a good poster, then there are very few on this forum. Most people are not posting to change hearts and minds. They are posting to attack the opposition.

The only way you can change people's opinion is to establish a civil dialog in which you attempt to reach some middle ground. Otherwise, the opposition will not even read your posts except to pick it apart. Quoting facts and offering proof, is ineffective. There are dozens and dozens of climate change discussions filled with all kinds of scientific gobbledygook, charts, and formulas that no one reads.

Normally because people cite facts without context and frame them around their own preconceived biases. Whether for or against an issue. Bias distorts objectivity. Emotion clouds judgement. Both lead to a person only looking for what makes them feel good as opposed to what matches reality.

For example:

If you don't like Trump, you will more than likely look for anything to justify that dislike.

If you like Trump, you will more than likely look for anything to justify that like.

If you are objective and unbiased, you would be more inclined to consider both and form your own opinion whilst using the information you gathered to justify it.

Sometimes I call people out on this forum for saying they are moderates. Moderates are objective and open minded, they don't take overtly extreme stances on either side. They are willing to listen and open their minds to opposing viewpoints without necessarily becoming offended. They are also willing to change stances based on concrete facts, evidence and observation.

I often find myself not being able to reply to most posts because of vitriol or sheer ignorance of facts. Or just for the fact that some are simply overtly childish and contribute absolutely nothing to the dialogue.

Civil dialogue is only half the battle. A rational argument is the other.

Although I agree with most of your post, cognitive scientists have determined by many studies that facts and rational arguments do not change opinions. They only polarizes opinions. If you want to change hearts and mind, you have to establish a dialog and you can't do that by proving your adversary is wrong. You have to find common ground that both of you can agree on and build on it. The following video illustrates this quite well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Although I agree with most of your post, cognitive scientists have determined by many studies that facts and rational arguments do not change opinions. They only polarize opinions

Intriguing.

I must be unique in that way then.

If you want to change hearts and mind, you have to establish a dialog and you can't do that by proving your adversary is wrong.

My opinion is this: Never refer to the person you are debating with as an "adversary". That only hardens them to your viewpoints... or in your words, it further "polarizes" their opinion against yours.

Furthermore, the person you are debating should not live in ignorance if facts are readily available to contradict their argument. Nor should they live in ignorance of facts. One of the worst things, I believe, is to let a person continue believing something that isn't true when there are facts and evidence to the contrary. How they handle that information is a burden for them to bear alone.

 

[Flopper]

Although I agree with most of your post, cognitive scientists have determined by many studies that facts and rational arguments do not change opinions. They only polarize opinions

Intriguing.

I must be unique in that way then.

If you want to change hearts and mind, you have to establish a dialog and you can't do that by proving your adversary is wrong.

My opinion is this: Never refer to the person you are debating with as an "adversary". That only hardens them to your viewpoints... or in your words, it further "polarizes" their opinion against yours.

Furthermore, the person you are debating should not live in ignorance if facts are readily available to contradict their argument. Nor should they live in ignorance of facts. One of the worst things, I believe, is to let a person continue believing something that isn't true when there are facts and evidence to the contrary. How they handle that information is a burden for them to bear alone.

If you submit facts and arguments to prove someone's beliefs are wrong, that's fine. Just don't expect them to change their beliefs. If you want to establish a fund to help people that are victims of climate change, you don't attack core beliefs of climate change deniers, you appeal to their desire to to help people in distress and don't mention climate change at all. If you want democrats to support reducing welfare payments to the poor, talk to them about ways to create jobs for the poor.

 

[Jackson]

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

I'm willing to find that out myself. I've spend my first few hundred posts arguing and insulting other users in zone 2. However, recently, I've noted that I'm using a lot more curse words in real life than normal, which is not good. I'm having fun acting a fool without repercussions, but if it really is affecting my behavior in real life then it would be best to nip that in the bud before I get any slip ups at work or against friends and loved ones.

So, I'd like to start posing here to be more civil.

Same thing happened to me.

very interesting. Thank you to both of you.

 

[Jackson]

Thanks to everyone who added a post on this thread. All oif you are posters I would like to share a dialogue with.

 

[Pogo]

My style of debating involves directly attacking the integrity of the point, the logic, the reasoning. Not the person. I do that to the best of my ability, but sometimes there are instances where it is warranted. One has to choose those instances wisely, or otherwise he risks being labeled a fool or a troll.

Heh, six years on this forum, I can read almost all of the posts I've ever made here and... I've noticed how much I've changed in my ideas and beliefs. I was virulently anti gay, anti liberal and anti democrat. Now, I have acknowledged my bisexuality, I find myself to be a classical liberal and, much to my surprise, I find myself despising both parties equally.

My arguments aren't driven solely on emotion and rhetoric like they used to be.

I can attribute that to forcing my mind open and not letting it be barred shut by dogmatic political views or overly rigid interpretations of my faith.

What makes a good poster? A willingness to change one's mind or views based on facts and concrete circumstances. A willingness to embrace a reality that they would rather not.

Open mindedness, objectivity. I'm talking genuine here. If you are here simply to hear (see) yourself speak, then you aren't a good poster, you are someone who needs psychiatric help.

If the willingness to change one's mind is a sign of a good poster, then there are very few on this forum. Most people are not posting to change hearts and minds. They are posting to attack the opposition.

The only way you can change people's opinion is to establish a civil dialog in which you attempt to reach some middle ground. Otherwise, the opposition will not even read your posts except to pick it apart. Quoting facts and offering proof, is ineffective. There are dozens and dozens of climate change discussions filled with all kinds of scientific gobbledygook, charts, and formulas that no one reads.

Normally because people cite facts without context and frame them around their own preconceived biases. Whether for or against an issue. Bias distorts objectivity. Emotion clouds judgement. Both lead to a person only looking for what makes them feel good as opposed to what matches reality.

For example:

If you don't like Trump, you will more than likely look for anything to justify that dislike.

If you like Trump, you will more than likely look for anything to justify that like.

If you are objective and unbiased, you would be more inclined to consider both and form your own opinion whilst using the information you gathered to justify it.

Sometimes I call people out on this forum for saying they are moderates. Moderates are objective and open minded, they don't take overtly extreme stances on either side. They are willing to listen and open their minds to opposing viewpoints without necessarily becoming offended. They are also willing to change stances based on concrete facts, evidence and observation.

I often find myself not being able to reply to most posts because of vitriol or sheer ignorance of facts. Or just for the fact that some are simply overtly childish and contribute absolutely nothing to the dialogue.

Civil dialogue is only half the battle. A rational argument is the other.

Although I agree with most of your post, cognitive scientists have determined by many studies that facts and rational arguments do not change opinions. They only polarizes opinions. If you want to change hearts and mind, you have to establish a dialog and you can't do that by proving your adversary is wrong. You have to find common ground that both of you can agree on and build on it. The following video illustrates this quite well.

Not sure why we're assuming that changing the other party's opinion is the goal here... :

 

[Pogo]

Although I agree with most of your post, cognitive scientists have determined by many studies that facts and rational arguments do not change opinions. They only polarize opinions

Intriguing.

I must be unique in that way then.

If you want to change hearts and mind, you have to establish a dialog and you can't do that by proving your adversary is wrong.

My opinion is this: Never refer to the person you are debating with as an "adversary". That only hardens them to your viewpoints... or in your words, it further "polarizes" their opinion against yours.

Furthermore, the person you are debating should not live in ignorance if facts are readily available to contradict their argument. Nor should they live in ignorance of facts. One of the worst things, I believe, is to let a person continue believing something that isn't true when there are facts and evidence to the contrary. How they handle that information is a burden for them to bear alone.

This. ^^

That's more to the point --- correcting the record. The partisan who insists on peddling mythologies isn't going to be swayed, but the third-party reader deserves to know what the reality is.

 

[Flopper]

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

I'm willing to find that out myself. I've spend my first few hundred posts arguing and insulting other users in zone 2. However, recently, I've noted that I'm using a lot more curse words in real life than normal, which is not good. I'm having fun acting a fool without repercussions, but if it really is affecting my behavior in real life then it would be best to nip that in the bud before I get any slip ups at work or against friends and loved ones.

So, I'd like to start posing here to be more civil.

Same thing happened to me.

very interesting. Thank you to both of you.

I've been posting on USMB for nearly 10 years and I have made it a rule never to launch personal attacks against other members no matter how much I disagree with them. I may ridicule or attack their beliefs or the people they support but personal attacks are not ok. The reason is this. Once you resort to personal attacks, further discussion ends. Secondly, personal attacks send a message to all readers, that you have nothing of consequence to contribute.

 

[Flopper]

Although I agree with most of your post, cognitive scientists have determined by many studies that facts and rational arguments do not change opinions. They only polarize opinions

Intriguing.

I must be unique in that way then.

If you want to change hearts and mind, you have to establish a dialog and you can't do that by proving your adversary is wrong.

My opinion is this: Never refer to the person you are debating with as an "adversary". That only hardens them to your viewpoints... or in your words, it further "polarizes" their opinion against yours.

Furthermore, the person you are debating should not live in ignorance if facts are readily available to contradict their argument. Nor should they live in ignorance of facts. One of the worst things, I believe, is to let a person continue believing something that isn't true when there are facts and evidence to the contrary. How they handle that information is a burden for them to bear alone.

This. ^^

That's more to the point --- correcting the record. The partisan who insists on peddling mythologies isn't going to be swayed, but the third-party reader deserves to know what the reality is.

Submitting facts to set the record straight is fine. Just don't expect it to change the opinion of the person you are debating. Of course what we do on USMB is not real debating.

 

[Pogo]

Although I agree with most of your post, cognitive scientists have determined by many studies that facts and rational arguments do not change opinions. They only polarize opinions

Intriguing.

I must be unique in that way then.

If you want to change hearts and mind, you have to establish a dialog and you can't do that by proving your adversary is wrong.

My opinion is this: Never refer to the person you are debating with as an "adversary". That only hardens them to your viewpoints... or in your words, it further "polarizes" their opinion against yours.

Furthermore, the person you are debating should not live in ignorance if facts are readily available to contradict their argument. Nor should they live in ignorance of facts. One of the worst things, I believe, is to let a person continue believing something that isn't true when there are facts and evidence to the contrary. How they handle that information is a burden for them to bear alone.

This. ^^

That's more to the point --- correcting the record. The partisan who insists on peddling mythologies isn't going to be swayed, but the third-party reader deserves to know what the reality is.

Submitting facts to set the record straight is fine. Just don't expect it to change the opinion of the person you are debating. Of course what we do on USMB is not real debating.

Yes, but again, it's a leap to assume changing the opinion of one's counterpart is the goal in the first place.

 

[Papageorgio]

His lies about closing the border

What lies about closing the border? Please be SPECIFIC.

“Let me just give you a little secret,” Trump said at the White House. “Security is more important to me than trade. So we’re going to have a slower border or a closed border.”
"Mexico's tough. They can stop them, but they chose not to. Now they're going to stop them. And if they don't stop them, we're closing the border. They'll close it. And we'll keep it closed for a long time. I'm not playing games."

Now he says he's going to make it harder fom migrants to get asylum.

Trump has been threatening to close the border for months, make it harder to get asylum, and of course stop illegal immigration with his wall but he hasn't done any of those things. The only thing he's doings is encouraging migrants to come to the US while they can still get in. If he really wanted to solve his immigration crisis, he would keep his mouth shut and let his actions speech for themselves.

The statistics shows less illegal immigrants are coming into the US, where are you getting that more are coming in?

U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Total Lowest in a Decade