DiscussMormonism.com

More and more lately, I wonder about the usefulness of debating politics (or just about anything, really) in an age where facts are as disputed as opinions. Who is the arbiter of truth? People will believe whatever the hell they want by simply employing the blanket idea, if I don't like it, I don't have to believe it.

If there's one thing that debates over evolution, climate science, religion, etc have taught me, it's that people stubbornly believe BS, and no amount of data will dissuade them from their comfort stories.

It's a rare thing when you get to observe two people having a debate over a difference of opinion, and they do it respectfully. It's even more rare to observe someone in the process of changing their mind.

Occasionally, I'll get sucked into debating someone on some topic, and I invariably view the exercise as fruitless after the fact. It makes me wonder why humans learned to talk at all.

Sometimes I enjoy reading a good take-down, but mostly I wonder why people bother. I suppose it's just another way to cure boredom. The option I usually take is to observe, point and mock. It's a more reliable sanity-maintenance plan when I know certain folks don't have it in them to listen to reason.

The best defense I've heard is that, although you won't change your opponent's mind, you might influence third-party observers. It's an excellent defense, but it comes with the drawback that it somewhat legitimizes your opponent.

The only other reason I can think to do it is for your own personal benefit to work through an issue. I guess that's a good reason too, although I think you can do that without having to entertain people who deny facts.

Any other reasons to bother?

Some Schmo wrote:Any other reasons to bother?

I do it for the sake of examining my own positions more so than out of concern for what someone else thinks. I don't think my opinions change quickly but I can sincerely say I've had people here change my view on subjects over time.

Sophists prided themselves on their ability to win any debate on any subject even if they had no prior knowledge of the topic through the use of confusing analogies, flowery metaphors, and clever wordplay. In short, the Sophists focused on style and presentation even at the expense of truth.

- Some Guy on the Internet

There's value in rhetoric:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric

The fact of the matter is, as men, we have to engage in rhetoric by virtue of our nature. There's no other way to discuss politics. There's no other way to govern in a democracy.

Realpolitik, rather than ideological, moral, or ethical considerations these days are as if Machiavelli screwed Putin and they had twins - Hillary Clinton and McConnell. Nothing matters except the acquisition of power and the furthering of powerful interests. I tend to believe the Democrats are the lesser of two evils, while many others would or could argue that it's Good vs. Evil.

And that's the point of arguing. Some are realists. Some are pragmatists. Some are idealists. And some are sophists.

You're just not going to get away from it.

- Doc

By defining the age as 'The Post Truth Age', you have described an age where truth has lost. I don't believe we are yet living in a post-truth age. Truth is certainly under assault, and one of the great leaders of the assault is the President. It is not an easy time. But I think still there are many times when the cumulative effects of an argument based on fact can chip away at the mask that never seems to change.

The arc of the moral universe may bend towards justice, but we have to keep encouraging it.

maybe the OP should ask Bill Clinton "...what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

subgenius wrote:maybe the OP should ask Bill Clinton "...what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

It's akin to Senator Warren IS a Cherokee even though her test was vetted against Mexican, Peruvian, and Venezuelan DNA resulting in 99.999% White bread woman.

And yet, we can have people so in the tank for her, or the Democrats, that admitting she was full of crap is too unbearable to even entertain.

Every. Sword. Must. Be. Fallen. Upon.

Whatever the case may be she's a handy example of how the intersection of truth and politics can be ridiculous.

- Doc

honorentheos wrote:

Some Schmo wrote:Any other reasons to bother?

I do it for the sake of examining my own positions more so than out of concern for what someone else thinks.

My guess is that this is pretty common.

honorentheos wrote:I don't think my opinions change quickly but I can sincerely say I've had people here change my view on subjects over time.

One of the main reasons I read this forum is that it helps to challenge and refine my ideas.

MeDotOrg wrote:By defining the age as 'The Post Truth Age', you have described an age where truth has lost. I don't believe we are yet living in a post-truth age. Truth is certainly under assault, and one of the great leaders of the assault is the President. It is not an easy time. But I think still there are many times when the cumulative effects of an argument based on fact can chip away at the mask that never seems to change.

The arc of the moral universe may bend towards justice, but we have to keep encouraging it.

I honestly admire your optimism. I wish I could stand there with you.

I agree you can slowly change minds, but it seems to me the people most apt to learn and change their minds are a minority already on the side of truth.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:

subgenius wrote:maybe the OP should ask Bill Clinton "...what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

It's akin to Senator Warren IS a Cherokee even though her test was vetted against Mexican, Peruvian, and Venezuelan DNA resulting in 99.999% White bread woman.

And yet, we can have people so in the tank for her, or the Democrats, that admitting she was full of crap is too unbearable to even entertain.

Every. Sword. Must. Be. Fallen. Upon.

Whatever the case may be she's a handy example of how the intersection of truth and politics can be ridiculous.

- Doc

And i am reminded that, to Democrats, Rachael Dolezal IS black, and that a man IS the women's cycling champion.
But somehow Republicans are the only delusional people and must certainly be the cause of whatever "post-truth" world they imagine as just recently emerging.
Watching the stages of grief play out for the past 17 months has been entertaining but there is a concern for how deeply entrenched some of these Libs have been in the cult of President. It seemingly has impeded and regressed the maturity of a wide demographic that is unable to fathom the wisdom of how our country functions.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:

subgenius wrote:maybe the OP should ask Bill Clinton "...what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

It's akin to Senator Warren IS a Cherokee even though her test was vetted against Mexican, Peruvian, and Venezuelan DNA resulting in 99.999% White bread woman.

And yet, we can have people so in the tank for her, or the Democrats, that admitting she was full of crap is too unbearable to even entertain.

Every. Sword. Must. Be. Fallen. Upon.

Whatever the case may be she's a handy example of how the intersection of truth and politics can be ridiculous.

- Doc

I agree with you on this one. Too many are so invested with the success of the team that they cannot admit that one of their team looks silly. This is an inherent problem with political parties and one of the main reasons why I don't affiliate with any party. In any event, the purpose of political parties seems to be, more and more, to get you to go against your own self-interest and support what the big donors want.