// There's no point debating anything online //

Yup, I'm thinking more and more that this is true. The most annoying thing is that people can't stop on topic and they usually do end up in a who-has-the-largest penis contest...

I wonder if people attended a social gathering, if they would act the same way that they do on a blog where they can post anonymously?

At least at a social gathering, one has more control over who attends. On a blog, anyone can just jump in and say anything and start hurling insults and stupid comments, whereas if they tried that at any live gathering, they would be asked to leave.

Sigh...

Sorry, I meant to post that people can't "stay on topic". Yet another problem with debating online! :\

A caveat though. The private, by invitation only, blogs have more civilized discussion.

There's no point debating anything online.

I disagree, and to prove it, I'm going to post an uncharitable sentence-by-sentence deconstruction of that paragraph, refuting each point out of context, with the sole purpose of making its author look foolish before the rest of the readership. I will then finish up by calling the author an idiot and suggesting that he is a homosexual. That should do nicely.

I don't think that this is true. I've had my mind changed by things I've read in blogs and other online forums. And as for the stuff I've written, it has helped me to work out my main reasons for thinking the way I do. It beats the hell out of cable news talk shows.

Most people don't get to belong to debating clubs. A good blog or message board is a decent substitute. Having said that I'm not a blog triumphalist and I agree that many of them are silly.

I agree with Dende there are occasionally fruitful discussions on blogs. That said they are usually hidden in a sea of logically flawed arguments, hyperbole, and mean-spirited attacks.

re: debating online.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the author essentially debating online?

I have wondered if what little capacity we have for politics isn't wasted on blogs. If we spent half the time writing our state & federal representatives we might actually accomplish something. On the other hand we are able to argue points & clarify our beliefs. We might even go & read something before arguing certain points.

Re: Debating Online

First step of a debate: Deny that your opponent has the right/ability to participate in the debate.

Mr. Brooker isn't making an argument. He's simply defining his opponents by his own standards.

"I am going to make the assertion that nothing you write matters, therefore you cannot respond in any manner that will disprove me."

Writing them out of existence, if you will.

I doubt I'll be believed, but I was introduced to the political blogging community about two months ago, when I got a computer. Until then, it was just something they yelled about on the news sometimes.

I've lurked here, and at a few others, for about that length of time. I've watched the debates. Here, they don't question your manhood, but certain commenters do question your intelligence / right to debate the topic in question. It's not an uncommon tactic, and I agree with AsinineAmerican that the author is doing precisely that.

That being said, I have to admit I've seen some very pointless discussion on some blogs. A lot of ego-stroking and self-congratulatory crap agreeing with the author, followed by some person (I believe they are called "trolls") who makes some vaguely argumentative point and proceeds to, indeed, hurl invective at all those who agreed with the author. This then devolves into a shouting match about who has the biggest penis. It really does happen, and I, for one, do not wish to participate in such nonsense. So I also agree with the author.

Besides, my penis is small, and I'm very sensitive about it. I don't know if my fragile ego could handle a disagreement.

Thanks for reading. I know I ramble.

Oh and obviously the level of debate by our political masters is obviously of such a higher level. That's why we've got such vigorously considered policies such as the Iraq invasion...

I think the trick is to find a place where there is a decent level of forum moderation that keeps the trolling to a minimum and the discussion fruitful. They are not all private - there's some good public places to chat all over the net.

If a moderator wants their site to be popular they have to strike a balance between a level of candid, vigorous debate on one hand and childish behaviour on the other.

Hey, Phil, I didn't think that you were rambling. You followed the dialectic approach of Thesis -- Antithesis -- Synthesis. ;)

Technically, Phil's approach was: Thesis -- Antithesis -- Synthesis -- Penis

Which is (as mentioned) the online analogue to the dialectic approach :-)

I am enjoying the irony of debating online whether we should debate online.

Anyho, as a man of dubious faith in God, I am extrememly pleased to read Mr Moyers working on this project. He won't change the world, but at least let out the steam in angry discourse between poeple.

If anyone's interested, Moyers wrote an interesting essay on this subject of religious irrationality. And, here's a shorter essay on, not anti-christian, but anti-christianism

Hi philmarlowe, I enjoyed your post as self-deprecating humour like Jon Stewart's is always, unfortunately in short supply.

Sometimes, the more you don't think youself seriously, the more people will take you seriously.

Hi marco, can you print the text from Times for me here as it is restricted access?

Hey Kes,

I don't know if Norm wants me to post it on here, as it's copyrighted. How about it Norm?

Oh wait, I found it on someone's blog.

Hi marco, nice read indeed!

Muchos gracias : >

There's an old saying: debating on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

I don't think anyone actually believes they are going to change the mind of anyone else on the Internet, no matter how convincing they feel their argument might be. The only real use I find for arguing online is for questioning and expounding upon my own position. If you can't defend it in writing (particularly without resorting to calling people Nazis or using the phrase 'black people') then you probably shouldn't believe it.

"A caveat though. The private, by invitation only, blogs have more civilized discussion."

True, but that's probably because invitatation-only blogs are the newest incarnation of the oldest institution: the Ivory Tower. Everybody goes to their favorite invite-only blog to find people who agree with them wholeheartedly.

You won't find much discussion, civil or otherwise, on the Internet. Even if your intent is to have such a discussion you will get weighed down in minutae as points you thought were closed get re-opened days, weeks, or months later, or people begin sliding in the personal insults or just outright lying about the outcome of earlier discussions.

People are basically people, regardless of the technology you give them. They love their cliques. No matter how whacko your beliefs are, if you can find two or three other people to hang out with who think the same crazy shit, you'll be happy. Isn't that how Scientology works?

Agreeing is so boring.

If you believe what you are saying, Joe_Average, then continue the discussion on the up is down thread.

Average_Joe, my job is simple.

I will not let people who lie about issues close to my heart to keep lyiong about them.

When someone tells a lie often enough, it may become truth in the public's eye.

That's how the Republicans have been getting scot free about their claims to make US safe, its economy strong and values secure.

Does most Americans feel safe?

Do they feel rich?

Do they see the country becoming more moral? Or more corrupt?

You all know better than I do.

Thanks for the links, marco. It's refreshing to see fundamentalism deconstructed. It's a dangerous trend in this country, and I, for one, have no wish to live in a theocracy.

The question is, can we get enough loud theists on our side? "God is on my side" seems to trump all other arguments, and we need a way to counter it before it's too late.

Wow . . . never thought I'd be advocating more theists in politics . . .

And because no one knows the other in the Internet, it is even more important to support your points with credible proof.

Average_joe, you should try doing that for a change.

LOL Mat! who said //Technically, Phil's approach was: Thesis -- Antithesis -- Synthesis -- Penis

Which is (as mentioned) the online analogue to the dialectic approach :-) //

Unfortunately some people use the following approach:

Thesis: You dick head!

Antithesis: You don't even have a dick!

Synthesis: If you do have a dick, it's small.

This is known as the Penis -- NoPenus -- Peniculus approach to online debating.

Kes and I are still waiting for Joe to respond to all of the lies and disinformation that he posted and that many of us addressed on the up is down thread.

It still remains to be seen if he will be able to respond to these issues without calling someone a moron or some other mean-spirited attack and without hyperbole.

When I mentioned a private club, it was mostly with Joe_Average in mind. He has a way of lowering the level of discourse. Although, at times, I have learned a lot by the intelligent responses to his ignorant comments. He hates liberals and the main reason he is here on this blog is to inflame people, where often says thinks such as "It's you tofu-eating, tree-hugging, Prius-driving, Kerry-voting West Coast liberal types ... blah blah blah..

Blogosphere June 21— A growing body of evidence suggests that "the average joe" is way below average.

Just checking to see if anyone else noticed the ad against "net neutrality" on this site?

interesting. is it to allow both points of view to be presented here?

Cirano, Norm has provided a link to the U-tube presentation of net neutrality before and we disucssed it here. This is such an important topic for internet users, that I guess he decided it was important to present it again.

All points of view are allowed on Norm's sight and he is fair webmaster. It is much more productive if the different points of view presented, as Norm stated above, are not "logically flawed arguments, hyperbole, and mean-spirited attacks."

Still, he does not delete these kinds of posts and does adhere to the concept of net neutrality.

I do not doubt Norm's open policy here (as in he does not advocate censoring opposing points of view.)

But I'm not talking about a post by a blogger, I was referring to the advertisement on the front page.

I did not know that the open policy applied to advertisements as well.

Cyrano, you're observant. I did not notice that.

Hmm, my stand is for net neutrality btw i.e. as telco should not have any deciding vote on what type of access I require for the websites I want to go on.

I paid for ISDN access every month. I don't see why they need to collect bills from websites if the telcos are not hosting them or contributing one set to their infrastructure.

Zahid, thanks for the fair warning.

As an Asian and non-Jew/Christian/Muslim/Arab/Malay, I have no incentive to take sides.

If I have, it is because the facts clearly point to a lack of justice for the Arab palestinians and far too much overlooking of Israel's war crimes, military aggression and development of clandestine nuclear weapons.

No history student can overlook Israel's role is screwing up its people as well as its Arabs by insisting on a non-existent right to set up a state on foreign soil with a migrant population.

Kindly note that my grandparents have lived under colonial opprression and Japanese occupation and they never stopped reminding us that we need to fight for our homes while not invading or destroying the homes of others.

Few people really care but over 2 million Chinese were massacred by the Japanese when they invaded East Asia. Thousands were gassed as guinea pigs.

In Singapore, thousands of Chinese were taken to beaches, blindfolded and shot in the back. No one helped us Chinese. No one tried to save us as well, especially when the British only left behind a token force to protect us.

However, we Chinese do not engage in massacring other ethnic groups or invading other countries, because we understand the pain and horror of such experiences.

That is why I cannot understand why the Israelis can inflict a holocaust on the Arab palestinians for the last 50 years, even though they keep shouting their victimised history of Nazi oppressiona and the Holocaust.

It is clear that Israel is merely resorting to emotional blackmail to get other countries to ignore its rogue state activities.

This tactic was particularly effective after WW2 as most European nations and the Catholic Church felt guilty for doing nothing to save the Jews killed by the Nazis.

That's why UK and Europe supported setting up a Jewish state in the Middle East, even after they made promises to the Middle East Countries that the local Arabs will have self-government and right to self determination on their own lands.

However, most Europeans came to realise that and that's why Europe is now supporting the Arab palestinians instead.

So kindly spare me the rubbish about the world turning back on Israel.

This happened because we have caught on to Israel's game.

Former victims do not have any right to victimise others in the same ways or in more ways.