So basically this board is just google wars

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Centinel
Now that was an interesting read Isla. I liked that alot, and makes a good point that politics and religion are based more on perception than fact.

I've heard that story before. It shouldn't and really doesn't apply anymore with the speed and "accuracy" of the Global Internet connected world. Only the U.S. seems to have managed to act like an Ostrich.

 

[Centinel]

I think you missed the point of the story.

 

[yllus]

Your "outsider looking in" schtick re: this forum is getting a little tiresome. Try not to take offense; it's just said in honesty.

Just do the best job you can personally of using proper sources and shrug off the people who use joespoliticalblog.org as a source.

 

[judasmachine]

the thing is that no matter what your point of view happens to be, you can find some site spouting the same thing. NO MATTER HOW SKEWED.

 

[Centinel]

It's not a matter of me being an outsider looking in.

I'm just curious as to whether it is acceptable now to just link googled sources.

If it is, hey....whatever. I may not like it but there it is.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Isla
Here's a little story for you to ponder . . .

Thanks, Isla! For some reason, I've always thought that Rudyard Kipling authored that poem, so I learned something today, not to mention the exquisite appropriateness of the poem's message.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

I try not to respond to mindless or troll-infested threads anymore; there's generally no hope of salvaging them.

 

[Centinel]

You underestimate the powers of a Libertarian with a net connection at work with little to do my son

 

[racolvin]

Originally posted by: Centinel
.I see alot of jaw-wagging, and not a helluva lot of common sense or sources that arent so off their damn rocker it's not funny.

I don't know who said it but here goes ..

"Common sense is not so common"

Common sense, to me, has always been sort of a subconcious level of logic and reasoning. Unfortunately, some topics cause people to throw logic and reasoning right out the window.

R

 

[Isla]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Isla
Here's a little story for you to ponder . . .

Thanks, Isla! For some reason, I've always thought that Rudyard Kipling authored that poem, so I learned something today, not to mention the exquisite appropriateness of the poem's message.

I think he did author a poem on the subject... this was just what I could find to cut and paste on the web. It's my favorite story of all time and when I start teaching regular ed next year, I'm going to build a lesson around it.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Centinel
Now that was an interesting read Isla. I liked that alot, and makes a good point that politics and religion are based more on perception than fact.

one of my favorite quotes is "perception is reality"

how someone preceives something, is exactly how it is, to them. When I debate with someone, my goal is to change someones percerption(assuming they have the correct facts by this point), offereing them different points of view, making an effort to use the same facts, shown in a different light, so that thier perception might be altered. If they are open enough to accept the different view (assuming they understand it, often they never reach this point, either by stubborness or stupididty) then I will respect thier differing opinion on the matter.

 

[TuxDave]

Google wars? Yes... I agree, this does eventually revert into google wars because many people end up making crazy statements on things they know almost nothing about. And when they are challenged on a point, they have nothing else to do but google around and find another support point.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Centinel
....on who can spew the most google links to support their side of the argument?


With of course no regard to the credibility or quality of source.

You know, i can create a blog in a day to support whatever crazy theory I can dream up with and have it hit the front page of google with enough connections.

Just because you found it on google doesnt make it credible......jesus people c'mon...use a little common sense.

How do you have 146 posts in one day? WTF?

 

[daveshel]

We used to get some meaningful analysis and discussion here, but it all turned to waving flags and slinging slogans in the weeks before the election. Then it became 'America: Love it or leave it' central as the sore winners tried to stifle dissent like they were gatekeepers at a Bush rally. A lot of the regulars gave up and left or get angry enough to get themselves banned. But you are correct in your observation that it has become not much more than a clipping service.

But maybe it will come back.

 

[Centinel]

ntdz:

Never understimate a guy with a political science education, a love of political discussion, a net connection at work, and WAY too much time on his hands

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Centinel
No, i'm saying that most people here seem to hit google, and post the first bunch of links that come up. Just because it hits the top of google doesnt make it credible.

Anyone can throw up a webpage, or write an editorial from some podunk local newspaper.

google itself is not a credible source...it's a searce engine. Google is irrelevant in my point.....what google brings up is what is relevant.

Have none of you people had to use credible sources for term papers or papers for your profession? Is credibility of source not expected anymore?

Care to back up your claims with links?

 

[Tylanner]

This board isn't really a place for serious political discussion, it's more like a coffee talk.

Every thread turns into the same thing anyway, "Bush(God)(Murderer)(is a Liar)".

Bunch of people posting what they think will get the opposition's goat.

 

[daveshel]

I once hope that by exposing well-documented and thoughtful analysis that others would come to the same conclusion, but I found that people tended to start with their conclusions then gather exidence that supported that conclusion, branding evidence that didn't support their conclusions worthless propaganda. Then defend their position by a lot of name-calling.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Centinel -- I don't understand your point. Google's a great search engine, and, as you say, the credibility of any sited sources is the imparitive.

I don't think much of simply posting links and quotes without any further commentary, but credible sources supporting a point makes a better case than not including them.

Are you suggesting we don't include good sources to support our points? :Q

here here....

to argue sans sources is to go into a gunfight without bullets. it's always good to back up your stance with credible concurring statements. to do otherwise is foolish. i don't google, necessarily. i have other sources, but i wouldn't think of throwing something out there (especially with my sarcastic tone) without first checking to see if actual smart persons agree with me

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Centinel
It's not a matter of me being an outsider looking in.

I'm just curious as to whether it is acceptable now to just link googled sources.

If it is, hey....whatever. I may not like it but there it is.

WTF is a googled source? If i google something and find it to be credible, then post it, would that be a googled source, how about if i just stumbled across that same source, would that make a difference?

I don't get it, are sources found on search engines (such as google) somehow less credible JUST because you found the information via google?

I am sure you have a (very well hidden) point but i fail to see it.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: yllus
Just do the best job you can personally of using proper sources and shrug off the people who use joespoliticalblog.org as a source.

It isn't good enough just to "shrug off" people who use joespoliticalblog.org as a source. sometimes joespoliticalblog.org might offer something useful or valid. Are people so feeble or lazy they can't or won't take a look at the source, and have a go at assessing it's merit based on say it's *actual content* and references, as opposed to dissmissing out of hand because you don't like the look of it?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Centinel
....on who can spew the most google links to support their side of the argument?


With of course no regard to the credibility or quality of source.

You know, i can create a blog in a day to support whatever crazy theory I can dream up with and have it hit the front page of google with enough connections.

Just because you found it on google doesnt make it credible......jesus people c'mon...use a little common sense.

I usually try to answer the questions at hand. But the usual suspects will just google their way out of a mess. Throw up a bunch of links and hope the other side just gives up due to the sheer mass of BS they can link to.

When my opponent resorts to this I get a laugh as they are defeated.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Centinel
....on who can spew the most google links to support their side of the argument?


With of course no regard to the credibility or quality of source.

You know, i can create a blog in a day to support whatever crazy theory I can dream up with and have it hit the front page of google with enough connections.

Just because you found it on google doesnt make it credible......jesus people c'mon...use a little common sense.

I usually try to answer the questions at hand. But the usual suspects will just google their way out of a mess. Throw up a bunch of links and hope the other side just gives up due to the sheer mass of BS they can link to.

When my opponent resorts to this I get a laugh as they are defeated.

You usually resort to flaming and that is pretty much it. When was the last time you really made a worthwhile post regareding nything that was factually correct and free from flames?

Feel free to quote ANY such post from you, free of religius crap, flames AND that was on topic for the discussion at hand.

I searched an i can't find any.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Centinel
Honestly I really am new.

My education background is political science, focusing on foreign and security policy/conflict resolution.

I enjoy having debates with people with differing ideological views than mine, and I saw that this board was very left-leaning (dont take that as an insult people...your views just differ from mine).

I came here hoping to have some good, productive discourse so I can understand other points of view.

Most of the posters here are libes. Being on the intellectual high ground, they think we poor neocons can't read and don't have computers, so they do all this research as a favor to us! Thank y'all for da favor!

 

[Genx87]

You usually resort to flaming and that is pretty much it. When was the last time you really made a worthwhile post regareding nything that was factually correct and free from flames?

Feel free to quote ANY such post from you, free of religius crap, flames AND that was on topic for the discussion at hand.

I searched an i can't find any.

I will rarely flame anybody. But I will present an opposing view. If you consider that flaming. Then I suggest getting a thicker skin.

You however will resort to name calling and childish behavior. And have on several occasions.