|
Post by durk on Jul 18, 2018 18:39:04 GMT -5
What...Trump is president? smh
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Jul 18, 2018 19:25:17 GMT -5
How does this response have anything to do with what I said? How does your response have anything to do with what Trump said? What is your opinion on the Helsinki meeting? It didn’t. I made my own observation
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Joe Davola on Jul 18, 2018 19:37:50 GMT -5
President of the United States, the most powerful position in the world, shouldn't be an entry level position, and that's what it's been made to be....
as i've said before, in the U.S. election thread, i was the president of my 1st grade class, at the age of 6 - and that makes me more qualified to be president of the United States than Donald Trump.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Jul 18, 2018 22:10:54 GMT -5
Personally I agree that I'd dislike seeing the normalisation of much of what Trump stands for. However, in order to prevent that, it would be necessary to convince a number of people of the opposite opinion to change that standpoint, and directly calling them not 'normal' (or anything else that tends more towards the inflammatory than the objectively factual), is extremely unlikely to be productive in achieving that aim (much more likely would be counterproductive). To be fair though, how could they possibly be convinced? Because we're not just talking about people who voted for Trump(some of which later regretted it, being convinced he didn't give a shit about their problems), we're talking about people who STILL believe in him and his ideas. If they haven't been convinced yet, when will they? Do they even have any intrest in changing their minds? I think the answer is no, and then debating with them seems rather pointless to be honest. People will have differing opinions from you. That’s life. Why convince them otherwise? Why do THEY have to change and not you?
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Joe Davola on Jul 18, 2018 22:38:08 GMT -5
To be fair though, how could they possibly be convinced? Because we're not just talking about people who voted for Trump(some of which later regretted it, being convinced he didn't give a shit about their problems), we're talking about people who STILL believe in him and his ideas. If they haven't been convinced yet, when will they? Do they even have any intrest in changing their minds? I think the answer is no, and then debating with them seems rather pointless to be honest. People will have differing opinions from you. That’s life. Why convince them otherwise? Why do THEY have to change and not you? I’m in line for Taco Bell right now, what do you want? Gracias.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 19, 2018 1:09:17 GMT -5
People will have differing opinions from you. That’s life. Why convince them otherwise? Why do THEY have to change and not you? I’m in line for Taco Bell right now, what do you want? Gracias. Do Taco Bell sell handjobs from Donald? If not I don’t think Jordan will be interested mate.
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on Jul 19, 2018 1:30:14 GMT -5
To be fair though, how could they possibly be convinced? Because we're not just talking about people who voted for Trump(some of which later regretted it, being convinced he didn't give a shit about their problems), we're talking about people who STILL believe in him and his ideas. If they haven't been convinced yet, when will they? Do they even have any intrest in changing their minds? I think the answer is no, and then debating with them seems rather pointless to be honest. People will have differing opinions from you. That’s life. Why convince them otherwise? Why do THEY have to change and not you? So you're saying you should never try to convince anyone about anything ever? That's an intresting viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Jul 19, 2018 3:04:00 GMT -5
How does your response have anything to do with what Trump said? What is your opinion on the Helsinki meeting? It didn’t. I made my own observation And what was that observation Jordan?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 4:26:33 GMT -5
Personally I agree that I'd dislike seeing the normalisation of much of what Trump stands for. However, in order to prevent that, it would be necessary to convince a number of people of the opposite opinion to change that standpoint, and directly calling them not 'normal' (or anything else that tends more towards the inflammatory than the objectively factual), is extremely unlikely to be productive in achieving that aim (much more likely would be counterproductive). To be fair though, how could they possibly be convinced? Because we're not just talking about people who voted for Trump(some of which later regretted it, being convinced he didn't give a shit about their problems), we're talking about people who STILL believe in him and his ideas. If they haven't been convinced yet, when will they? Do they even have any intrest in changing their minds? I think the answer is no, and then debating with them seems rather pointless to be honest. I don't think there is anyone who is completely inconvincible, and under that assumption, I always see it as more beneficial in the long term to attempt discussion with people of opposite opinion like this than it would be to keep them at arm's length by assigning labels to them along the lines of not 'normal'. On the other hand, even if I now started to assume that there is a group of people who will never ever be convinced, there is still no benefit to calling them not 'normal' (or anything inflammatory), because, by assumption, these people will never be swayed by that sort of stuff and so it's just shouting at a brick wall "we will build a great wall along the southern border" :\ .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 4:53:29 GMT -5
To be fair though, how could they possibly be convinced? Because we're not just talking about people who voted for Trump(some of which later regretted it, being convinced he didn't give a shit about their problems), we're talking about people who STILL believe in him and his ideas. If they haven't been convinced yet, when will they? Do they even have any interest in changing their minds? I think the answer is no, and then debating with them seems rather pointless to be honest. People will have differing opinions from you. That’s life. Why convince them otherwise? Why do THEY have to change and not you? I might be missing some nuance or something, but it doesn't seem too clear to me what your position is with this post. By (rhetorically?) questioning "Why convince them otherwise?", you seem to imply that it's either bad (or at best irrational) trying to convince other people to change their opinion. This seems at odds with itself in that it's an attempt to convince someone to change their opinion, and tbh also many posts in this section which are attempts to convince people to change their opinion on some area of politics.
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Jul 19, 2018 11:25:05 GMT -5
I’m in line for Taco Bell right now, what do you want? Gracias. Do Taco Bell sell handjobs from Donald? If not I don’t think Jordan will be interested mate. Is your only ability to insult people?
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Jul 19, 2018 11:25:27 GMT -5
It didn’t. I made my own observation And what was that observation Jordan? Read the initial post I made, that’s the observation
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Jul 19, 2018 11:26:26 GMT -5
People will have differing opinions from you. That’s life. Why convince them otherwise? Why do THEY have to change and not you? I might be missing some nuance or something, but it doesn't seem too clear to me what your position is with this post. By (rhetorically?) questioning "Why convince them otherwise?", you seem to imply that it's either bad (or at best irrational) trying to convince other people to change their opinion. This seems at odds with itself in that it's an attempt to convince someone to change their opinion, and tbh also many posts in this section which are attempts to convince people to change their opinion on some area of politics. Why do people who support Trump need their opinions changed and yours doesn’t? What makes yours superior?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 12:01:02 GMT -5
I might be missing some nuance or something, but it doesn't seem too clear to me what your position is with this post. By (rhetorically?) questioning "Why convince them otherwise?", you seem to imply that it's either bad (or at best irrational) trying to convince other people to change their opinion. This seems at odds with itself in that it's an attempt to convince someone to change their opinion, and tbh also many posts in this section which are attempts to convince people to change their opinion on some area of politics. Why do people who support Trump need their opinions changed and yours doesn’t? What makes yours superior? I try to go into any discussion with someone who disagrees with me with my opinion and will try and convince the other side to agree with my initial opinion whilst being open to changing my opinion should they have good reasons. I think that's a healthy balance between the extremes of stubbornly adhering to an opinion as fact and not having an opinion on anything. Btw, your position I questioned previously still seems inconsistent to me for the reason I gave before.
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Jul 19, 2018 12:30:53 GMT -5
Why do people who support Trump need their opinions changed and yours doesn’t? What makes yours superior? I try to go into any discussion with someone who disagrees with me with my opinion and will try and convince the other side to agree with my initial opinion whilst being open to changing my opinion should they have good reasons. I think that's a healthy balance between the extremes of stubbornly adhering to an opinion as fact and not having an opinion on anything. Btw, your position I questioned previously still seems inconsistent to me for the reason I gave before. What position of mine are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Jul 19, 2018 14:07:07 GMT -5
And what was that observation Jordan? Read the initial post I made, that’s the observation Apologies if I've missed it but I can see no specific reference to the the Helsinki summit.
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Jul 19, 2018 14:07:56 GMT -5
Read the initial post I made, that’s the observation Apologies if I've missed it but I can see no specific reference to the the Helsinki summit. I didn’t say anything about that. I made a separate statement
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Jul 19, 2018 14:24:49 GMT -5
Apologies if I've missed it but I can see no specific reference to the the Helsinki summit. I didn’t say anything about that. I made a separate statement Where?
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Jul 19, 2018 16:05:04 GMT -5
I didn’t say anything about that. I made a separate statement Where? “Even if someone is not a complete Trump hater, and can recognize when him/his administration make a false move, they’ll still be lambasted for finding any positives in him. That’s why so many people don’t take the radical anti-Trump people seriously.” That’s all I said
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Jul 19, 2018 17:31:25 GMT -5
“Even if someone is not a complete Trump hater, and can recognize when him/his administration make a false move, they’ll still be lambasted for finding any positives in him. That’s why so many people don’t take the radical anti-Trump people seriously.” That’s all I said What are your thoughts on the Helsinki summit?
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Jul 19, 2018 17:55:43 GMT -5
“Even if someone is not a complete Trump hater, and can recognize when him/his administration make a false move, they’ll still be lambasted for finding any positives in him. That’s why so many people don’t take the radical anti-Trump people seriously.” That’s all I said What are your thoughts on the Helsinki summit? Trump lied. What else can I say?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 4:55:13 GMT -5
I try to go into any discussion with someone who disagrees with me with my opinion and will try and convince the other side to agree with my initial opinion whilst being open to changing my opinion should they have good reasons. I think that's a healthy balance between the extremes of stubbornly adhering to an opinion as fact and not having an opinion on anything. Btw, your position I questioned previously still seems inconsistent to me for the reason I gave before. What position of mine are you talking about? Where you say : "People will have differing opinions from you. That’s life. Why convince them otherwise? Why do THEY have to change and not you? " Naturally I agree with the the factual statement at the start of that - peoples' opinions differ. But after that you seem to imply that trying to convince people to change their opinion is a bad thing ("Why convince them otherwise?", reads as being rhetorical from my end, especially next to the second question. If it's not, apologies, misinterpretation on my end & everything I type in this post from here on in is redundant ). In the cases where people go into a political conversation/debate,etc. without an open mind to changing their own opinion, then sure, I agree that trying to convince someone else to change their mind is hypocritical. However, in the opposite case where all parties in a debate go in with an open mind, and are willing to change their opinion, then I see no issue with people trying to convince other people to change their opinion. Basically I felt that criticising the act of convincing someone else to change their opinion was a bit too general of a statement to make, as that also would criticise many instances of healthy political discussion.
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Jul 20, 2018 7:20:38 GMT -5
What position of mine are you talking about? Where you say : "People will have differing opinions from you. That’s life. Why convince them otherwise? Why do THEY have to change and not you? " Naturally I agree with the the factual statement at the start of that - peoples' opinions differ. But after that you seem to imply that trying to convince people to change their opinion is a bad thing ("Why convince them otherwise?", reads as being rhetorical from my end, especially next to the second question. If it's not, apologies, misinterpretation on my end & everything I type in this post from here on in is redundant ). In the cases where people go into a political conversation/debate,etc. without an open mind to changing their own opinion, then sure, I agree that trying to convince someone else to change their mind is hypocritical. However, in the opposite case where all parties in a debate go in with an open mind, and are willing to change their opinion, then I see no issue with people trying to convince other people to change their opinion. Basically I felt that criticising the act of convincing someone else to change their opinion was a bit too general of a statement to make, as that also would criticise many instances of healthy political discussion. But my question was why is your opposition wrong and you’re right? How can you be so sure?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 8:07:46 GMT -5
Where you say : "People will have differing opinions from you. That’s life. Why convince them otherwise? Why do THEY have to change and not you? " Naturally I agree with the the factual statement at the start of that - peoples' opinions differ. But after that you seem to imply that trying to convince people to change their opinion is a bad thing ("Why convince them otherwise?", reads as being rhetorical from my end, especially next to the second question. If it's not, apologies, misinterpretation on my end & everything I type in this post from here on in is redundant ). In the cases where people go into a political conversation/debate,etc. without an open mind to changing their own opinion, then sure, I agree that trying to convince someone else to change their mind is hypocritical. However, in the opposite case where all parties in a debate go in with an open mind, and are willing to change their opinion, then I see no issue with people trying to convince other people to change their opinion. Basically I felt that criticising the act of convincing someone else to change their opinion was a bit too general of a statement to make, as that also would criticise many instances of healthy political discussion. But my question was why is your opposition wrong and you’re right? How can you be so sure? I've already stated a couple of times that I'm open to changing my opinion should I see convincing reason to change it, which doesn't seem to suggest that I'm 'sure' that I'm right. In order to be more open to changing my opinion, I'd have to start changing my opinion without a convincing reason to do so, which doesn't seem to be a good objective route to take. Or alternatively, I could try and eliminate any trace of my opinion on anything, which would be as objective as it gets, but imo isn't the healthiest state of mind as it'd result in feeling absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Jul 20, 2018 8:12:20 GMT -5
Where you say : "People will have differing opinions from you. That’s life. Why convince them otherwise? Why do THEY have to change and not you? " Naturally I agree with the the factual statement at the start of that - peoples' opinions differ. But after that you seem to imply that trying to convince people to change their opinion is a bad thing ("Why convince them otherwise?", reads as being rhetorical from my end, especially next to the second question. If it's not, apologies, misinterpretation on my end & everything I type in this post from here on in is redundant ). In the cases where people go into a political conversation/debate,etc. without an open mind to changing their own opinion, then sure, I agree that trying to convince someone else to change their mind is hypocritical. However, in the opposite case where all parties in a debate go in with an open mind, and are willing to change their opinion, then I see no issue with people trying to convince other people to change their opinion. Basically I felt that criticising the act of convincing someone else to change their opinion was a bit too general of a statement to make, as that also would criticise many instances of healthy political discussion. But my question was why is your opposition wrong and you’re right? How can you be so sure? That’s literally what an opinion is.
|
|