When will it stop … can it stop??

Chief Bones said:
In the future feel free to contact me via PM if you have a problem with something I have posted before you make an *ss out of yourself.
Click to expand...

And in the future if you have something to say feel free to NOT put it in a box that quotes me as saying it.
 
Damien435 said:
Here's the thing, I read to be entertained, years of schooling has taught me that any other way of reading requires sifting through 99 pages of BS to find that one paragraph you need where as on the internet you can find a spot where that one paragraph has already been singled out.
Click to expand...

en....that is not good at all

I guess all you want to read is the definition of a concept rather than how the author comes up with that concept. THat means you'd rather feed yourself with a concept (one paragraph) rather than think critically about it through reading the reasons and causes (pages of explanations).
 
I guess you could put it that way, when I do not care how he came to a conclusion that I disagree with I won't care how it was he came to that conclusion.
 
and how do you disagree with somebody in a reasonable and logical manner if you do not even know how the person comes with up his or her conclusion?????

is that how you debate? say "no" and provide no relevent rebuttals?
 
Over the years I have learned that debating is futile because everyone is set in his/her own ways and nothing I can do will chance that, so I don't waste my breath.
 
Damien435 said:
Over the years I have learned that debating is futile because everyone is set in his/her own ways and nothing I can do will chance that, so I don't waste my breath.
Click to expand...

oh I see...

I think we should change how the congress or parliment work by just proposing a law and vote and proposing another law and vote,

debate is useless????

Only through debate, both sides can have a clear understanding of the other side and many grey areas become clear through debating.

To a more general level,
democracy is about convincing the majority of people to agree upon this and that through debating with other sides.
 
sorry to butt in but...Debate wont work on servere left-winged Democrats. nor will it work on servere right-winged Republicans. debate only works on those who are on the fence. and chances are if you have gotten all the way to Congress, whether it be the House or Senate, you are probably hard-core one or the other. Im sorry but i must cast my vote with Damien
 
so I am sure after two hundred years of congress debates, the elite group there should have noticed that all these time they debate with each other to propse, to amend, to add, to delete clauses of law are a waste of time????

if your "assumption" is right, then there will never be any amending of laws, or compromises, or changes,
through debating, people have a better understanding of one another's opinion and make a better choice
 
most of the time it is futile because of one thing. the executive check on the legislative branch called "veto." Congress can debate 'till the sun comes up but if the president vetoes it then it basically fails. unless congress votes again and comes up with a 2/3 vote for the law,or amendment, or change in general, then the debate is futile. There havent been that many, if any at all, times that that has happened.
 
the president would not just veto a law without debating with the congress (by debating I mean both publically and privately) to be reasonable with one another, if there is no debate, but veto, then this is not democracy , but dictatorship

for congress, debating a law is important to make proper amendment to meet the standard and to make the language of law tight, through debating, problems are exposed and corrected.

In addition, only through debating, one is able to state out all of his or her opinions. otherwise, it is same with a majority-ruled dictatorship, with a few party leaders control the whole thing, rather than senators and congressmen and women vote with their own decisions after the debate (senators generally have a greater freedom in voting, and making a decision after the debate)

finally, the debate allows the people to know what is going on, and to know the both sides of the argument, otherwise, it will be like an elite dictatorship with the people knowing nothing
 
chinese-canadian said:
if there is no debate, but veto, then this is not democracy , but dictatorship(turn on c-span i garauntee that congress isnt being graced with the presence of the president) congress debates among themselves, not with the president, if a president doenst like a bill, he can veto it without talking to congress.

for congress, debating a law is important to make proper amendment to meet the standard and to make the language of law tight, through debating, problems are exposed and corrected. yes they are often corrected, but they are often misinterpreted and really made worse.

In addition, only through debating, one is able to state out all of his or her opinions. otherwise, it is same with a majority-ruled dictatorship
Click to expand...
exactly, majority rules. dictatorship's definition is a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator(not restricted by constitution or laws or opposition etc. the framers of the constitution specifically made the system of checks and balances for this reason. fear of going back to monarchy. without the three branches of gov't, we would be a dictatorship. there are certain powers that each branch has, and certain powers that each branch doesnt have. one can state ones opinions without debate, its called the first amendment. free speech was made for stating opinions.
 
Sounds like a closed mind to me...........

Damien435 said:
Over the years I have learned that debating is futile because everyone is set in his/her own ways and nothing I can do will chance that, so I don't waste my breath.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you have a closed mind to me...........

It is sad to me that someone as young as you are is so jaded (18 years old).....

I am 61 years old and have had discussions/debates with many people/groups that have modified/changed my mind on a veritable plethora of topics/issues over the years.....

It still happens on occasion when someone comes up with an argument where I go ... "Gee - why didn't I think of that" ... and change my mind and stance on a topic/issue.

Don't allow your mind to atrophy ... a mind is a terrible thing to waste ... and a young mind locked into a vice of no original thought is the worst waste of all.....
 
C/2Lt Henderson said:
exactly, majority rules. dictatorship's definition is a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator(not restricted by constitution or laws or opposition etc. the framers of the constitution specifically made the system of checks and balances for this reason. fear of going back to monarchy. without the three branches of gov't, we would be a dictatorship. there are certain powers that each branch has, and certain powers that each branch doesnt have. one can state ones opinions without debate, its called the first amendment. free speech was made for stating opinions.
Click to expand...

would it be dictatorship if the leader of a ruling party leader can propose and pass and veto a law or whatever without even participating in a reasonable debate with the opposition???

debating is a part of freedom of speech, that is to question and to try to convince one another with reason and logic,

to further prove my point, on this Dubai port deal thing
if there is no debate, just pass the crap with Presidential power, and veto any law against the deal without having a debate on this issue, do think it is fair for the people? do you think it is reasonable?
 
C/2Lt Henderson said:
wouldnt original thought be setting yourself against conformity to mass thought? otherwise known as debating...
Click to expand...

why setting conformity with the majority?
briliant leaders can convince the majority and lead the people into right direction.
 
conformity with majority because thats what happens when you CONVINCE...conform...convince...with the crowd...majority convincing isnt always the right direction either. adolph hitler was a very persuasive guy, yet his leadership cause him to be one of the most hated dictators ever...
 
hitler didn't use debate in his government to get through this and that, there was no debate in the parliment under Nazi rules, there is only proposing and voting (without debating, voting is meaningless too, as everyone knows the one side of the issue,not the whole picture)

debating is about seeking the truth and right thing,
debating is also like the market of idea, where ideas are compared and contrasted to filter out trash and reveal truth,

although things dont always work out well, debating is still the single best form to seek out truth,

show me anther way when all sides of opinons and all aspects of the issue are raised with debating
 
hitler didnt use debate..i didnt say he used debate. im saying he convinced the majority..but it wasnt to lead the people in the right direction. once again, debate isnt going to work on hard-core Democrats, or hard-core Republicans. and those respective parties arent going to send some1 to congress who is "on the fence" democratic representatives are going to be very very bery liberal, and republican reps. are going to be very conservative, no ammount of debating can change that. so i ask you, whats the point of debating with a brick wall?
 
extremists are minority in a stable and democratic society (not a society that is bombarded with propaganda)

1. in senate, senators often have a great amount of freedom to make his or her own decisions, so often what you see is republicans vote with democratics or a bunch of democratics vote with republicans, those real extremists, (like ultra-conservatives who openly agasinst gay and immigrants) are rarely elected
2. in congress too, for examples
In the 108th Congress, a preliminary Medicare vote passed 216-215, a vote on Head Start passed 217-216, a vote on school vouchers for Washington, D.C. passed 209-208, and "Fast track,"

so your imagination of all republicans vote together vs democratics vote together and nobody listen to one another is a misconception
 
i was wondering where you got your facts from...i was worried i knew less about the inner workings of my own country than someone from another...btw..congress and senate are the same thing..congress is made of senate and house of reps....when did i ever say that all republicans vote together? i dont think i ever said that...redleg! did i ever say that? no. i said that democrats are going to put ultra-liberalists in congress to attempt a balance of the executive and legislative branches of gov't. it makes sense for the republicans to put a conservatist in congress. reason tells at least me that it would have no profit to put a democrat in congress when you are a member of the republican party...i would love to continue this discussion but i have taken my LUNESTA for the night and am highly unstable at the moment. so im going to do my breathing, and sleep. please feel free to research any possible topics for further discussion tomorrow. good night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top