JoeyM wrote:racerdave600 wrote: I'd much rather talk about cars! Or pie! Not sure about the fart jokes however!You don't have to choose; you can talk about chili pie!!!
Isn't that a fart joke in pie form?
JoeyM wrote:racerdave600 wrote: I'd much rather talk about cars! Or pie! Not sure about the fart jokes however!You don't have to choose; you can talk about chili pie!!!
Isn't that a fart joke in pie form?
Josh wrote: Man, does it make me sad that the accepted "civilised person" response to the prospect of discussing the policies that shape the future of society is to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend not to care.
I think its more of a "time and place" issue. Who wants to discuss politics or religion when hanging out and wrenching on cars.
In reply to logdog:
That's exactly my point, though. If people valued being able to disagree with each other in a civilized manner, or seeing more than one side of an issue, there would be no need for this ultimately destructive idea that one just shouldn't talk about big, important, real things that affect themselves and others. Instead, we say "this isn't the time/place" and leave people to only hear the opinions and debate that they themselves seek out, and then for some reason we're surprised that so many people think they know everything about everything, and that being a belligerent shiny happy person is the appropriate way to respond to anyone who doesn't agree with them. Ugh.
I think it is a function of the text media. The same thing could be said face to face over, or on creepers under a car, without it ever becoming hostile. Why? voice inflection and a smile diffuse provide an appropriate-to-the-situation context that doesn't exist.
Also, this:
In reply to Josh:
Has a political or religious discussion ever ended with one party saying "you are right, I am changing my mind". When I was in college we used to spend all night raging against the machine. Now I find it exhausting. But thats just me and why I tend to stay out of the politcal stuff. I hear other peoples opinions all the time. We have two old guys in the office that are on opposite ends of the spectrum. After about an hour I cant handle it anymore. If that makes me destructive, so be it.
logdog wrote: In reply to Josh: Has a political or religious discussion ever ended with one party saying "you are right, I am changing my mind".
It may not be likely, but it's probably happened more times than either of us could count. To your point, though, is exercise a waste of time because nobody's ever lost 50 pounds in a single workout? Just because it doesn't happen all at once doesn't mean it's pointless. And I think generally when the exchange is mutually respectful both parties are better for understanding the other's opinion even if it serves to reinforce their previously held beliefs. The two guys in your office sound like exactly what I am lamenting - that only the most belligerent, inflexible people discuss certain issues with everyone else in the office fingers-in-ears ignoring them. What makes me sad is that seems to be a metaphor for the whole country right now.
JoeyM wrote: I think it is a function of the text media. The same thing could be said face to face over, or on creepers under a car, without it ever becoming hostile. Why? voice inflection and a smile diffuse provide an appropriate-to-the-situation context that doesn't exist.
This exactly. If it was face to face these conversations would be fine but on a forum it just becomes a lot of self righteous prick waving.
I'm just tired of seemingly non-political threads getting floundered into political ones. I swear you could post a thread about puppies and someone would say how Obama is trying to take your puppies away or how the GOP wants to protect people's rights to have puppies. Or how Obama wants to give everyone a puppy and the GOP refuses to pay for puppy food. The floundering around here lately would support a Baltic fishing fleet.
In reply to Josh:
Our exchange is a perfect example. What would be the sucessful conclusion of our discussion. I feel political debates have a time and place and you feel the discussions should be more open and frequent (not to put words in your mouth, just trying to summarize). I am not likely to change my opinion, you are not likely to change yours. I can keep giving reasons why I dont want to hear it. You can rebuttal with reasons why I should. This could go on for pages and be reduced to "Your Mom" jokes
What does success look like? Its seems the discussions I have seen end in both parties being too tired to continue, or too mad to continue.
slefain wrote: I'm just tired of seemingly non-political threads getting floundered into political ones. I swear you could post a thread about puppies and someone would say how Obama is trying to take your puppies away or how the GOP wants to protect people's rights to have puppies. Or how Obama wants to give everyone a puppy and the GOP refuses to pay for puppy food. The floundering around here lately would support a Baltic fishing fleet.
This.
I'm fine with political threads personally... as long as the title reflects something political or warns that it's some stupid screaming political bloodbath.
What bugs me is getting surprised buttberkeleyed by political debates in threads that the title gives no hint that anything of the sort is happening.
The puppies example is a good one.
The constitution says that you cannot infringe on my right to PUPPIES! Puppies aren't dangerous the owner is. Hate the owner not the breed. There should be no limit to the number of PUPPIES I own nor should I be expected to equip my PUPPIES with leashes.
etc..
etc..
nocones wrote: The constitution says that you cannot infringe on my right to PUPPIES! Puppies aren't dangerous the owner is. Hate the owner not the breed. There should be no limit to the number of PUPPIES I own nor should I be expected to equip my PUPPIES with leashes. etc.. etc..
As soon as I saw a thread titled, "Commie Liberal Mag...." something, I just said myself... "Nope... ain't gonna go there..." and I still have no idea what the thread is about... probably better off that way.
it's really not all that bad ... everyone has played "sorta" nice and Margie has let it run .... don't know how long we can play nice with each other, but it's kinda nice 
So here's my question: why does every political thread on this board wind up as a discussion of food? Hey, Joey: Damn you and your chili pie, BTW; I am going to have to make that meaning casa del Curmudgeon is going to be rendered uninhabitable.
Politics can be discussed as long as it doesn't turn into a personal war. That happens too often; someone says A, then someone else says B and one of the two gets butthurt because there's no consideration that 1) they might both have an excellent point 2) there's room for compromise. As long as all concerned are willing to listen and consider another's viewpoint without saying (figuratively) 'YO' MAMA!' and then 'YOU'RE ANOTHER!' then it generally works out okay. Too bad that's a rare thing. 
You'll need to log in to post.
