To All Proclaiming Revolution

this made me feel a little more optimistic. kudos to this guy.

  On 10/4/2011 at 6:26 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

this made me feel a little more optimistic. kudos to this guy.

 

Wow, that guy is polite and ballsy at the same time.

  On 10/4/2011 at 8:05 PM, Braintree said:

  On 10/4/2011 at 6:26 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

this made me feel a little more optimistic. kudos to this guy.

 

 

Wow, that guy is polite and ballsy at the same time.

Exactly. That is how shit gets done. You bring your points to the table and talk about them in a forthright but respectful manner. Don't give them any shockfactor ad hominem rants to chop up and put on TV to make you look crazy.

see, that's a level of intelligence I do not possess. Or maybe its a level of patience.

Either way, the biggest problem I see is that the right-wing almost always dictates the premise of the argument from the get go. You can never go on the offensive so to speak, so it ends up coming out in frustration and aggressive words.

  On 10/4/2011 at 9:32 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

see, that's a level of intelligence I do not possess. Or maybe its a level of patience.

 

Either way, the biggest problem I see is that the right-wing almost always dictates the premise of the argument from the get go. You can never go on the offensive so to speak, so it ends up coming out in frustration and aggressive words.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? There's no need to be offensive. There's a point where you can be confident about getting your point across without convincing right-wingers. And that confidence should come from the logic behind the argument, instead of beliefs (which tend to be very emotional). Which is what debates are normally like. (!?) Or, were? Should be? It should be the norm. It used to be.

No matter how logical your argument is, "winning" a debate or even engaging in one is worthless if the audience cares nothing for what you are saying. That is where the frustration comes in.

You have attended a completely emotion-free debate? That sounds like fun!

"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."

Whatever you think debates should be about, there's a core of logic and counter logic. Winning is in the eye of the beholder, but should be based on logic. If you want to "win" on emotions, by all means keep on trying.

Also, even kids can do it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7937204747114517138

Saying that it is stupid to be unhappy about being poor in the US because it's much better than third world countries is like saying to third world countries that it's stupid to be unhappy about not having clean water cuz at least they aren't dead.

  On 10/4/2011 at 10:50 PM, goDel said:

Whatever you think debates should be about, there's a core of logic and counter logic. Winning is in the eye of the beholder, but should be based on logic. If you want to "win" on emotions, by all means keep on trying.

 

Also, even kids can do it:

http://video.google....204747114517138

who said I want to win with emotions? im telling you in certain circles, logic is an unacceptable form of argument unless it emotionally appeals to the audience.

I don't know if you have been in debates, but you must have been more fortunate than I in terms of setting. There is nothing more infuriating than to bust your hump gathering facts, historical examples, quotes and so on to put forth my argument and counter other logical arguments, and to be confronted with a side that simply labels me a Marxist, a humanist, and an intellectual elitist. Their unfounded remarks are met with a wave of applause.

Either facts are boring, or I am talking to the wrong audience. I don't really have much choice in the matter at the moment, but seriously, go debate someone formally on the other side. Hopefully they will have more respect for you than they do for me.

  On 10/4/2011 at 10:56 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 10/4/2011 at 10:50 PM, goDel said:

Whatever you think debates should be about, there's a core of logic and counter logic. Winning is in the eye of the beholder, but should be based on logic. If you want to "win" on emotions, by all means keep on trying.

 

Also, even kids can do it:

http://video.google....204747114517138

 

 

who said I want to win with emotions? im telling you in certain circles, logic is an unacceptable form of argument unless it emotionally appeals to the audience.

 

I don't know if you have been in debates, but you must have been more fortunate than I in terms of setting. There is nothing more infuriating than to bust your hump gathering facts, historical examples, quotes and so on to put forth my argument and counter other logical arguments, and to be confronted with a side that simply labels me a Marxist, a humanist, and an intellectual elitist. Their unfounded remarks are met with a wave of applause.

 

Either facts are boring, or I am talking to the wrong audience. I don't really have much choice in the matter at the moment, but seriously, go debate someone formally on the other side. Hopefully they will have more respect for you than they do for me.

The starting point was a youtube clip of someone who could have an argument with a fox news reporter (without "winning"). Without ending up in frustration or aggressive words. So, yes it is possible. You might ask yourself how or why, but seeing your response you've made your mind up about it being impossible in your case. Who am I to deny you your point? I'm not in your shoes.

also, if winning an argument depends on going

    Quote

on the offensive so to speak

    Quote

to be confronted with a side that simply labels me a Marxist, a humanist, and an intellectual elitist

"So to speak" implies not literally an offensive. An offensive in terms of not having to defend my position for the entirety of two hours.

You are basing your conclusions on two sentences (not even), conclusions that have absolutely no understanding with regards to the subject matter of the debate, who I was debating, and what happened during the debate.

I don't even know why I am responding to this. You weren't there.

  On 10/4/2011 at 8:05 PM, Braintree said:

  On 10/4/2011 at 6:26 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

this made me feel a little more optimistic. kudos to this guy.

 

 

Wow, that guy is polite and ballsy at the same time.

Really? I thought he had an excellent chance to talk about the economic problems, but instead devoted a bunch of time to slamming fox news.

  On 10/4/2011 at 10:50 PM, kwikshot said:

"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."

That was an awesome documentary.

whatever. you're going from talking in general, then debates, then a single instance of hours debating. i haven't been there. but the situation(s) your sketching is changing every post. as you say: there's no point in arguing here.

  On 10/4/2011 at 10:31 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

No matter how logical your argument is, "winning" a debate or even engaging in one is worthless if the audience cares nothing for what you are saying. That is where the frustration comes in.

 

You have attended a completely emotion-free debate? That sounds like fun!

hahahah,

  On 10/5/2011 at 12:06 AM, goDel said:

whatever. you're going from talking in general, then debates, then a single instance of hours debating. i haven't been there. but the situation(s) your sketching is changing every post. as you say: there's no point in arguing here.

to clarify. this was a series of debates. i was referring to one in particular that turned very nasty.

  On 10/5/2011 at 12:06 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 10/4/2011 at 8:05 PM, Braintree said:

  On 10/4/2011 at 6:26 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

this made me feel a little more optimistic. kudos to this guy.

 

 

Wow, that guy is polite and ballsy at the same time.

 

Really? I thought he had an excellent chance to talk about the economic problems, but instead devoted a bunch of time to slamming fox news.

Yeah, but he's just pissed off. It's all good. Not everyone needs to be on talking point, the media isn't going to give a shit anyway. It's social media and local organisation that is going to help change things. Also, this battle is one part of a bigger picture that has taken decades. More people have come out this time. But things still probably need to get worse before you'll have the groundswell you'll need to sweep away the old systems.

Thankfully the blinkered greed of those at the top is seemingly limitless. So we'll get there a little sooner rather than much much later.

yeah. i think he was just on point in terms of knowing that fox would smear the movement anyway, just spoke calmly about why it was sort of ridiculous to participate in the interview in the first place.

  On 10/5/2011 at 12:12 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

yeah. i think he was just on point in terms of knowing that fox would smear the movement anyway, just spoke calmly about why it was sort of ridiculous to participate in the interview in the first place.

yep, i got that too. ;-]

i wanna hit that lady in the face

I bet she looks a lot better at that age than you will.

  On 10/4/2011 at 10:50 PM, kwikshot said:

"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."

verity

  On 10/5/2011 at 3:51 AM, MAXIMUS MISCHIEF said:

i wanna hit that lady in the face

I agree, fuck the people who are unhappy with the system /s