The Downward Spiral of America

Both of you are misunderstanding me. I do not wish to live in a monotonous society. I'm saying that NON-thoughtful disagreement is not a good thing and depressing and LISTENING to OTHER people's opinions is crucial. So you're basically agreeing with me but I suppose what I meant wasn't clear.
 
Oh and being a democrat... and loving the fact that same-sex marriage is being recognized in more and more states than mass.... I'm going to say the state is not suffering. But thats just MY opinion.
 
again i need clarification, by thoughtful disagreement do you mean thought, or better yet, critical thinking, is good, where one might arrive at contrary points of view if the evidence is present to justify disagreement, or do you mean something different...

 
ide have to say something along the lines of evidence combined with good ideas.

haha i bet you are talking about healthcare. and yes while it appears to have worked in some countries(depending on how you define working)yes i still feel as if i presented a thoughtful aposing viewpoint. with points that have gone un answered.

sometimes you gotta go against the current, and push against the comon percpetions or misconeptions of your time.

for instance when confronted with evidence that Bush cutting taxes caused the government to actually take in more money, people will make an argument around this evidence. it happens all the time.

so i dont exactly know how to define thoughtful dissagreement. i would say a good starting point is keeping your argument devoid of "fuck off" "he's a commie" "bush sucks balls" "Obama hates the usa" this type of blather that has no weight at all in a thoughtful mature argument.
 
I'm not talking health care specifically, this is in a very broad sense

if you mean to say thinking critically is good, just say that, but if you mean to say that some innate disagreement, accompanying and biasing thought, being a general skeptic, or something along those lines, what you're talking about isn't good.

while skepticism is a solid position that is near impossible to prove wrong, it's no help what so ever, and very annoying

 
now i need some clarification....

is skepticism no help and annoying when talking about things like 9/11, WMD's, enhanced interrogation, da bush's or does it only fall into the annoying helpless state when talking about other things? like massive budgets, run away spending, flip flopping. there are a countless number of things to be skepical of. maybe its just who i am but i am a pretty skepitcal person.

dont take this personally im just having some fun. haha
 
general skepticism in lieu of critical but rational thinking, is always annoying and unhelpful, always.

the skeptic knows he can't be proven wrong, but adds nothing to the table, just because you can conceive of a way that not p doesn't mean not p. and just because people can't prove to you that not p doesn't make it so either.

it's pragmatics before skepticism in my book

 
de facto skepticism is the problem.
Challenging conventional wisdom and the status quo is healthy if it's done in a constructive manner and it's aim is to improve something. Unfortunately, many skeptics amount to little more than Monday Morning QBs, or cynical negative ball breakers. As far as I'm concerned, it's fantastic to be skeptical and to observe our government's movement with a critical eye.
HOWEVER, if that skepticism (whatever you wanna call it) is never followed by any action to fix whatever is wrong, it's worthless.
 
The fact that there are people like you in this country that have decision making power scares the living shit out of me. Christ kid. I don't know where to start.
 
Are you from Massachusetts? I'm guessing not, and I'm not referring to gay marriage either, that is useless compared to what the country is suffering from now. Come live in MA for a bit and see how terrible one party rule is. Our governor is a fucking moron who leaves the state or the country whenever things get sticky. MA is a mess.
 
i'm drawing a distinction between being skeptical, and being critical (viz. where you challenge somethings validity when you don't follow the logic), however, it's better to practice charity--assume the person you're talking to actually makes legitamte points rather than simply take up a contrary possition because you dont agree with their conclusion.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top