Cynical

[Soldier]

Alright, this whole board has been pissing me off recently. Between "Rummy", "Massachussetts", "Cuban Fencing", "Photo Inconsistencies", "Gay Games", "So Much Anger", I'm really getting sick of it.

I enjoy good discussion/debate, yes. But everything here turns political. And it's all the same people, taking the same positions on things. Epeemike is extremely liberal, all for gay marriage, down with Bush, get out of Iraq, it was illegal in the first place. Inq is conservative socially and financially, but from an agnostic perspective. D'Art is also very conservative, but from a fundamental Christian perspective. And yes, I know I'm leaving a lot of people out, but I really don't feel like looking it up now.

Just look at "So Much Anger" - it devolved into bickering over whose polls were better, and who was being duped. Come on, people. Do you really put any stock by public opinion polls anyway? It's all statistics, and any fool with a year's high-school education in them (like me) can make them come out however he/she wants. As the saying goes, "Numbers are like people - torture them long enough, and they'll say anything you want."

The predominant liberal side on the board seems to find a way to bash Bush with every topic that comes up - including shameless comments that have no substance to them, but are simply straight-up jabs for sake of insult. That's just retarded, people - it's fourth-grade.

It all seems to come back to the same topics, being debated with the same tactics, and they all bog down in the same final bickering over tiny, inconsequential details where neither side will ever back down. And while there is the potential value of swaying a third-party reader, when you get into those tiny details, you lose even that.


Come on. I'm not saying let's all get along, I'm saying let's try something new, alright? Images of WWI trench warfare are coming to mind, fights for mere feet of battlefield.

[Louweasel]

Hear hear!
These debates, whilst starting off interesting, should perhaps have some sort of expiry date because they do indeed just degenerate into bickering. And after a certain point, people's opinions are never going to change and you might as well have two pages of thread going "this is the case" "no it isn't" "yes it is" "no it isn't"....and so on ad nauseam. I've been known to post a couple of times, contemplate a further post to take up a new point, then just think "oh, I just CAN'T BE @RSED!". After a while nobody ever changes their mind about anything so debates can soon end up redundant.

Perhaps let's try to
a) Stick to the matter in hand and not start sniping at each other to score points
b) As Soldier suggests, widen the net to new topics - I think Iraq is (and I mean this metaphorically!) a dead horse
c) Recognise when the debate has run its course and stop before we all start repeating ourselves.

Soldier, I agree about public polls -as Disraeli said (at least i think it was him) "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics".

[The0ne]

I missed alot of these i guess. . . Yeah, I hate it when people bring in statistics to support their arguments. I am way to lazy to try and find counter-statistics of my own, so maybe we should ban them, like ballistic missile testing! btw Rumesfeld (however you spell his name, to tired to look it up) has some great quotes such as "There are several nations that are against the war in Iraq. Libya, North Korea. . . And Germany." Great quote.

[Gav]

Yeah, right on the money Soldier.

I hate wading through 300 posts to get to the meat of an argument only to find that it's the same statements made on post 13 [or whatever]. Also makes it a nightmare to keep an eye on. As for some of the religous debates... sheesh ...

[Masterurethane]

Good call.

Sometimes I can't help posting my opinions, but it becomes tiresome very quickly when you realise that no one is really going to take that much notice. Except of course, for the one person who decides to quote every post in the thread and attempt to rubbish it in some way.

Sometimes it's fun to play devil's advocate, but doing it on the internet is definitely a complete waste of time, as normally all you'll get in return is a pile of stats or an insult of some sort.

Cheers.

[Peach]

I feel I should quote the Bible at this point.

[noodle]

i briefly take part in most of those threads until they go south into a "i know you are but what am i" mode with people getting way too serious about issues (not that i'm not serious about issues. but, rather, what good is trying to convince someone to change their obviously entrenched stance on an issue on an online fencing forum?), spouting opinion as fact and countless figures, quotes, and statistics. 71% of all statistics are made up on the spot, anyway.

[ArcherUK]

I have wanted to join in some discussions but must admit the sheer effort is just too much. Soldier, I take my sensible hat off to you...fairplay.

[jeff]

But, but, but .... pointless debates are what the Internet was created for, right?

Seriously, the ad hominem attacks and self-righteousness can be found from all points of the political spectrum. If it's not an attack on Bush from one side, it's an attack on Clinton, who isn't even president any more, or a self-assured statement about how one or another class of humans is going straight to hell. The level of discourse needs to be higher, but it's hard to legislate such things. When a thread gets too tedious (and I have a pretty high threshold, I suppose) then I just lose interest myself.

[Artisan]

I saw this somewhere, thought it was fitting:

"Arguing on the internet is like entering the special olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded."

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by jeff

But, but, but .... pointless debates are what the Internet was created for, right?

Hear! Hear!

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by jeff

But, but, but .... pointless debates are what the Internet was created for, right?

I don't know, you'd have to ask Al Gore that one.....

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Tireur

I don't know, you'd have to ask Al Gore that one.....

Then maybe someone could explain it, using simple words, to Mr. Bush.

[Maeve_Mari]

Okay, and before someone beats me to it:

And Mr. Clinton can roll it into a cigar and smoke it. Or whatever.

Happy now?

[Maeve_Mari]

And, Tricky Dick can deny it.

[Louweasel]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Okay, and before someone beats me to it:

And Mr. Clinton can roll it into a cigar and smoke it. Or whatever.

Happy now?

I didn't think that's what Clinton preferred to do with cigars...

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Louweasel

I didn't think that's what Clinton preferred to do with cigars...

That'd be the whatever. To each their own.

[jeff]

Gore could bore us to tears (all the charisma of library paste)
Reagan could make up a charming story about
Jimmy Carter could fill us with malaise about it.
Dean could give us a big primal scream to let us know how he feels
Bush I could drop off part way through and not finish the job
Nader would take a contrarian position to be a spoiler (halo getting dented)

Any more, guys?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by jeff

Gore could bore us to tears (all the charisma of library paste)
Reagan could make up a charming story about
Jimmy Carter could fill us with malaise about it.
Dean could give us a big primal scream to let us know how he feels
Bush I could drop off part way through and not finish the job
Nader would take a contrarian position to be a spoiler (halo getting dented)

Any more, guys?

Sharpton! Sharpton! Give us something for Sharpton!

(I'm not a guy, is it okay anyways?)

[jeff]

Sharpton gets his hair done over the Internet. Howzat?

(For the purposes of this thread, "guy" is not gender-specific!)