Social Issues vs. Economics

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Karen[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I don’t care what kind of person you are it’s what you say that matters and if what you say seems to stand up to scrutiny. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]LOL – implying that you are the other type - the taught genius. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Look you maybe a genius or not but if you are so clever, sophisticated and subtle why don’t you seem able to answer a few questions? [/FONT]

 

[FONT=&quot]Karen[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You argument seems to be that in politics – economic issues, ideas and policy should be seem separately from social issues, ideas and policy. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]My view is that a person’s political ideology will have an influence on the type of economic and social policy they will promote how their view on social issues will affect their economic policy and how their economic policy will affect the way they treat social issues. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

Balbus

I’ve questions for you:


Why do you find it (apparently) impossible to simply disagree and to state your reason for disagreeing rather than offering “criticism” of ideas and the reasoning in developing such ideas?


Are posters on these forums somehow obligated to answer your questions or respond to your “criticism”?


Geez, you’re about to kill (or already have killed) another thread of some intelligent thought that doesn’t include anything about masturbation or drugs in its topic. Of the 80-odd posts in this thread, at least 35 are yours -- some of those are way “off topic”. Cripes, man, moderate. Please.

 

56

Questions and criticism is debate – or rather that is how real debate takes place – I think some people think debate is where one person makes a statement for something and an opponent of that idea gives a statement against then they are given the right to reply to those statements and that’s it, no questions no argument, no thought. It’s not a discussion seeking understanding it is all about rhetoric which by its very nature can be about clouding understanding.

If people are honest and honestly believe in the ideas they present then why wouldn’t they want to answer the questions or defend their ideas from criticism?

When I present ideas here I expect questions and criticisms, no not expect, I hope for questions and criticisms, I want there to be questions and criticism – my ideas are not immutable truths they were not handed down to me by some omnipotent god, they’re just ideas, viewpoints, opinions – if they stand up to questioning and criticism that’s great but if not then they need to be change or even dropped.

To me someone that refuses to answer questions or address criticisms of their ideas can’t address those criticisms or answer those questions, and that means that idea, viewpoint or opinion cannot be defended. It’s pure and simply a bad idea.

I think the problem with many people is that they treat their political opinions as if they were religious doctrine handed down to them by some omnipotent god, and so to them it is ‘immutable truth’ they don’t feel any obligation to defend it from questioning or criticism, because even if it can’t be defended it is still to them the ‘immutable truth’.

To me that is the equivalent of being an unquestioning political zombie devoid of all independent thought, a walking dead person in thrall to bad ideas that cannot be defended.

For example – I’ve explained why I think economic ideas and policies are linked to social issue ideas and policies.

So far I’ve been told I’m wrong - that they simply disagree with me - but wouldn’t a better approach be to get me to explain my views by asking me questions and allow me to understand their view by them simply answering my questions and then we could both see if our answers stood up to criticism?

We could then have a debate on the views rather these silly and rather tedious asides all the time.

 

You know what they used to say around the dorms about professors like him? "Don't take his class, if you can avoid it. He makes you feel like a fool if you say anything in class."

The university had to fill those sections by assigning students who requested somebody else.

Umm...maybe because they don't like the questions or the person doing the criticizing?

Fuck you.

 

Karen

Honestly in what way have I made you feel like a fool? I know little about you other than you don’t seem to like your opinions being questioned and it seems to make you angry.

And that seems to be your reason for disliking me but what better way to put me in my place than to devastate my views with clever, sophisticated and subtle argument something you claim you can produce but keep making excuses why you will not.

[FONT=&amp]I said : I don’t care what kind of person you are it’s what you say that matters and if what you say seems to stand up to scrutiny.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp] [/FONT]
The point I was trying to make was that I don’t need you to tell me what kind of person you are I can work that out for myself from what you say.

As I’ve said what I’ve worked out so far is that you seem to get angry with people that question your viewpoint.

Rather than spending all this energy been angry why not calm down and just answer the questions and address the criticism that come your way, life is going to be full of questioning and critics, best to learn to deal with them.

 

Willy


How do you question something without ever been critical? I mean isn’t questioning the feasibility of an idea been critical of it? To me one of the principles of debate is critical thinking of thinking critically about ideas and questioning assumptions.

 

Once more

I’ve explained why I think economic ideas and policies are linked to social issue ideas and policies.

So far I’ve been told I’m wrong - but wouldn’t a better approach be to get me to explain my views by asking me questions and allow me to understand their view by them simply answering my questions and then we could both see if our answers stood up to criticism?

We could then have a debate on the views rather these silly and rather tedious asides all the time.

 

As a middle-aged adult, my self-image is not so much defined by others anymore, but I can still identify a harsh, confrontational style in others, and it doesn't sit well with me to have my motives or ability to think questioned by anyone. That's very different from disputing opinions. A lot of your shit reads like a courtroom cross-examination of a witness by a hostile lawyer. In debate class, constant hammering away at a person's motives and intentions is taught as an intimidation technique; not allowed in an academic debate.

You might get better participation here if you were willing to turn down the nastiness a notch or two. It doesn't motivate people to hurry back for more of the same.

Not possible, because I am constantly forced to spend my time trying to restate everything I say in a way that you can understand it. If my writing was as incomprehensible as you say it is, other people would have pointed it out to me a long time ago.

Stop trying to make the thread all about you, and your preferences and expectations. Does anyone here seem to agree or even care? Do you want to end up talking only to yourself?

You have done such a fine job of derailing the thread that no one has yet mentioned yesterday's Republican primary in Michigan, which had evolved into a momentum-shifting showdown between the faction within the party that wants to make the election about the economy (Romney supporters) and those conservatives who place their highest priority on social issues (Santorum supporters). Romney's narrow win put him in a position to score a knock-out punch next week.

Sorry for that brief detour into politics. Now you can get back to your rant about how I can become a better person.

 

Karen

LOL you really don’t like being crossed do you.

OK - I just re-read the thread and you were fine when you just could dictate - but when asked to defend your ideas you got all huffy and pronounced “I can't think of anything more boring or irrelevant than listening to British guys debate American politics.”

I’d only posted four times mainly asking you to explain your views and putting up counter ideas - the only reply I got to those questions was that I was in your opinion boring and/or irrelevant. A British guy that couldn’t and seemingly in your view didn’t have a clue about American politics (your post 32, et al)

And basically that’s the drum you’ve been beating ever since.

You’ve said my posts are harsh, confrontation and insulting – but it seems that the only crime I committed in those first four posts seems to be that I had the audacity to ask you to explain your ideas (anyone can check the posts 18-20-23-24) and because you didn’t like being questioned you called me boring and/or irrelevant.

If anything the first ‘nastiness’ as you put it was yours not mine.

As I said at the time (post 50) I found your reaction bemusing you seemed to have got incredibly angry incredibly fast just because you’d been asked to explain your ideas.

I mean look at this you are basically saying you don’t like being asked to explain your reasoning (your motives) and you seem to feel that your thinking should be accepted and that you see any questioning of your thinking as an insult because it implies your thinking wasn’t perfect.

I’m very happy to have people question my motives, thinking, reasoning, rationale, ideas etc. And I don’t see questions as an attack on my ability to think but as way to see if my thinking is any good. I mean how do you know if your thinking on anything is any good if you refuse to let it be questioned?

 

Karen

The thread got derailed when you got angry and began telling people they were boring and irrelevant and started refusing to answer questions because you didn’t find that ‘amusing’.

LOL – it seems to me that your ‘quality conversations’ is you giving opinions without being questioned on them – when you ideas do get questioned you begin calling people boring and irrelevant and refuse to answer questions because that isn’t amusing for you.

LOL is this bit of cod analysis meant to hurt or something, am I meant to throw my head in my hands and cry ‘oh Karen is so right’ - oh come on, please get over yourself.

 

Karen

I’d love to debate politics with you but debate isn’t you giving an opinion that cannot be questioned but only agreed with. And it is not calling people boring and irrelevant because they disagree with you.

Now –

As I pointed out in post 70

I don’t think the social issue game plan even went away it plays so well to the base and so has been the bedrock of past Republican victories, so I don’t think you could call this a new development. The economic angle I think is meant to be for the wider audience and the undecided. But at this stage it is the primaries it can be the base that matters more in the race for the nomination (although if they push it too far they will turn many voters off). However it seems to me that it is easy to link the economic with the social their ideas on public spending are a reflection of their social attitudes.


I said this in reply to your comment –

I don’t think Michigan changed anything from what I said - Romney is thinking of the wider audience and the undecided as many among the base still regard him with some suspicion. While Santorum is playing to the base because he thinks that it is the base that matters more in the race for the nomination. I mean Romney only just won.

 

The thing I’d ask is what are the origins of the differing policies toward economic and social issues?

 

Willy

Well I’m sorry that has been your experience. I’m glad to say that my experience of debate and criticism has been a lot more enjoyable and constructive. Critical thinking by others as well as myself has helped me learn and has led to me changing my views or even drop ideas that couldn’t stand up to such criticism. To me questioning and criticism can help people find understanding and knowledge.

I think it might come down to how someone sees criticism, it can be taken on board and examined or be seen as an attack on ideas that some feels should not be questioned, such people I suppose would then see any criticism of their ideas as bullying.

But I’d ask you again - How do you question something without ever been critical? I mean isn’t questioning the feasibility of an idea been critical of it?

And how would you ever counter ideas that you thought were wrong? Can no idea, no viewpoint or no action even be criticised?

 

Willy

LOL but you haven’t answered them, can you?

I mean they are not particularly hard questions are they?

How do you question something without ever been critical?

Isn’t questioning the feasibility of an idea been critical of it?

How would you ever counter ideas that you thought were wrong if you can’t be critical of them?

Can no idea, no viewpoint or no action ever be criticised?

 

Karen

This may be your problem you don’t want to enlighten by explaining your ideas all you want to do is win. Many people have convinced me of their argument and changed my views over the years many more have given me great insights into their views.

But I think the problem here is that you don’t want people to understand you, you just want people accepting what you say without question.

*

LOL – I don’t think its about your inability its about your unwillingness, you just want people to accept your views without question as soon as someone asks questions you are unwilling to answer and begin making excuses.

You’re dismissing information and argument not on the grounds of validity but on the basis of its national origins. That hints at an incredibly closed minded and irrational mindset.

 

Willy

LOL - I wouldn’t even put myself in the third division. But maybe that’s the problem debate is not a football match with a winner and loser it is a journey, a journey of discovery, if you are unwilling to make the effort to travel you are unlikely to gain any benefit from it.

I want to here what you have to say, I then give my own opinion and ask questions in the hope you will answer the questions, ask your own of me and/or give your criticism my views. Please do question my views and opinions rather than just walking away before we have hardly begun, I mean you have only posted four posts on the subject and two saying you disagree and two saying you are not going to debate.

You said in post 86 that you thought criticism shouldn’t be part of debate but said it was ok to question the feasibility of an idea. I asked you if that wasn’t criticism. I mean if you question the feasibility of something I think most people would call that criticism.

Post 95 you reiterated you disagreement but you still don’t explain why questioning the feasibility of an idea isn’t criticism.

Post 97 you make it plain you are not going to answer my questions.

Post 102 (this one) you claim you have answered and you are not going to talk to me.

Well while I might have repeated the questions you definitely haven’t given an answer to them even once.

Anyway to repeat them again –

How do you question something without ever been critical?

Isn’t questioning the feasibility of an idea been critical of it?

How would you ever counter ideas that you thought were wrong if you can’t be critical of them?

Can no idea, no viewpoint or no action ever be criticised?

 

Great insult! Now my writing is so ineffective that it must be intentional. Do you stay awake every night thinking of new ways to demean people who don't kiss your ass?

You just want people to accept your "right" to have each and every one of your questions answered fully and completely, no matter how worthless or insulting others might find those questions to be. No such right exists online. Get over it.

If somebody asks me a question that I think is worth a damn, I'll answer it. Or maybe somebody else will jump in and address it better than I could. That's the way internet forum discussions go. People respond to whatever interests them. I don't know why you haven't figured that out by now.

To be perfectly honest, you are the main one I would like to exclude. I'm sure I could have a very civilized political conversation with Willie Blue, who is also British. No matter how much he and I might disagree on a topic, I can't see him ever acting like a dickhead and making me feel like an unwelcome visitor in my own thread. He knows a thing or two about how to get along with people. I could say the same about a lot of HF members, from several different countries. You could learn some social skills from them.

Saying anything to you is like putting one hand on the proverbial tar baby. There is no way to end it, and things only get progressively worse.

You are the ultimate win-at-any-cost debater.

Navajo Indian proverb:

If you want to know what you are like, look at the things you dislike in other people.
​

 

Karen

LOL – I asked you some questions, you didn’t want to answer them so you said I was boring, irrelevant, that my questions were useless and insulting and that I was not worth talking to.

After that you have used virtually every rhetorical trick in the book to get out of answering my questions, including accusing me of several debating crimes and misdemeanours.

I worked out some time ago - and I think most others have too - that you are unwilling or unable to answer the questions.

I’ve also worked out that you have a bad temper when crossed.

I’m sure you’d be happy to talk to people that don’t ask you questions that you are unwilling or unable to answer but as soon as they do I suspect you’d also start calling them boring, irrelevant and not worth talking to try and cover up that you are unwilling or unable to answer their questions.

 

Karen

The problem with only answering easy questions and never tackling things you’d rather not because you are unwilling or unable to do so is that you never stretch yourself or put you ideas to any real test.

Unlike you I don’t get angry with someone that asks me difficult question, I look forward to such questions, I like them, I see them as opportunities. I don’t make excuses or try to claim the people asking the questions are boring, worthless and insulting; I just try and answer the questions to the best of my abilities.

Also getting all huffy will not stop me from asking you questions or pointing out what I see as flaws in your ideas. You can answer the questions or not and you can address the criticisms or not – but if you don’t it just means the questions and criticisms remain.

 

On the contrary: Maybe Karen just thinks you're a twit.