Gun control, climate change, abortion, Brexit, Immigration, the existence of God etc. Do people ever change sides on these issues? All these debates seem to achieve is endless threads lasting hundreds if not thousands of posts getting more and more bitter cementing the division and hatred between us. Is it time to agree to disagree and move on to something more constructive or are these issues to important to ignore?
The fight is to convince the middle 20% or so that are on the fence on every issue. The left and right will never change their positions.
We've already debated the most contentious issues into the ground. There's nothing more to be gained from it.
They are important. There are people who do not participate in the debates but do read them because they are on the fence. And they learn from the discussions. They do have the capability to discern who is on the side of facts, and who is making a fool of themselves. We have a duty to expose the fools....
That middle 20% has seen the issues debated many times before. If they're still on the fence, then that's where they will remain.
I think the middle 20% has moved (at glacial speed) against abortion. Movement like this takes decades.
I think experience can change people, so long as they have the relevant facts. The abortion debate fence sitters often takes an about turn once a woman gets pregnant. Taxes do the same thing just as soon as you get your first paycheck and see how much the government charges you for bothering to work. This is why people get more conservative as they get older. It's easy to be an idealistic dreamer when you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. I will say that debating people who aren't intellectually honest hurts things, because that gives unearned credibility to the intellectually dishonest debater. People see the time spent debating that person and that must mean that the person is worth debating.
Do people really read 100-page threads though? I agree that the issues are important but when the same tired arguments are trotted out in multiple threads on the same subject often amongst a small group of the same old faces are those on the fence really going to commit? I dunno, I'm on the fence about this issue myself which is why I raised it in the first place. My gut feeling though is that it is all a bit pointless and divisive to get bogged down in the wedge issues. I rarely bother getting into these discussions any more on here and am more interested in reading and learning from the current affairs or history threads. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, you are one of the posters I have the most respect for on this site I just wish I shared your optimism that it serves any real point.
Discussing intricate details and getting more nuanced in dealing with contentious subjects is how solutions will be formed. Currently, most folks do not discuss difficult subjects.
You can change folks, if you use APRIORI proofs, IN THEIR FACE. The social dressing down, helps to cement the lesson. But opinions are lesser things.
This is why there is no such thing as an independent voter. You may change the letter behind your name but you never change your views.
In some of these threads Im talking more to the 90% that dont say anything than I am to the 10% that are just and yes, I realize that means Im
No. I completely agree with that. And the reason is that when a poster runs out of arguments to support or rebut a statement, they usually try to change the conversation I try (not always successfully) to stay on track. When I am discussing subject A, and the person or persons I am debating with try to change to subject B, I always ask "Before we continue, does the fact that you are now changing to B indicate that you agree with me on A? Usually they don't, but then we established that the debater has run out of arguments. For example, no Science denier has ever been able to provide an argument that contradicts the Epistemological argument: That the bulk of Scientific studies shows far beyond any reasonable doubt, that AGW is real. There is no point in going on to discuss whether CO2 levels are this or that, or if the seas will rise or not, if they can't argue against the very existence of actual peer-reviewed scientific studies that have been replicated over and over, all independently arriving at the same conclusion. In my opinion going beyond that point without agreeing on this premise is definitely pointless. And its what leads to hundred-page threads. But sticking to it and showing that they either can't rebut it, or that denying it would imply denying all Science, is very revealing. That's just an example. But if we in all subjects. Whether it's gun control, healthcare, make a specific proposal, and don't fall for it when they try to wander away into topic after topic.
Part of the problem with the largest threads is that people don't read the whole thing so different posters bring up the same points already debunked or proven. Add to that the multiple threads on the same topic and it just becomes excessively repetitive. A software program which doesn't allow you to post unless you have opened every page in a thread would cut down the duplication.
The political views of the left and right will always remain. As they should. All the noise about politicians is just that - noise. Sadly, each side lumps the politicians in with their views, forgetting that they are separate issues. People are fallible and corruptible. To defend the leader of one's party the way one would the actual views and policies of the party is just ridiculous. On both sides.
