Pity for the Impotent Dick

[skippy3481]

GR,
I understand what your saying and you post is precisely what I mean. I want to read posts that are least rationale, but it irrates me to no end to see someone just post a link just regurgitate what the article said. I can read, what im interested in is the posters original thoughts are on the subject. If i just wanted to read the news I would. I don't agree with a good a deal of what you and dts say, but that doesn't mean I enjoy reading your viewpoints. People who have differing viewpoints help to refine how i view a problem or situation. My point is this, come up with something original to a situation. Great discussion happens when people of opposing viewpoints can share viewpoints in a civil and meaningful way. Making light of a topic or the overt usage satire are not always the best weapons. In the future, I'll just ignore his posts, I was merely trying to generate an actual discussion on what I deem to be an interesting topic.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

GR,
I understand what your saying and you post is precisely what I mean. I want to read posts that are least rationale, but it irrates me to no end to see someone just post a link just regurgitate what the article said. I can read, what im interested in is the posters original thoughts are on the subject. If i just wanted to read the news I would. I don't agree with a good a deal of what you and dts say, but that doesn't mean I enjoy reading your viewpoints. People who have differing viewpoints help to refine how i view a problem or situation. My point is this, come up with something original to a situation. Great discussion happens when people of opposing viewpoints can share viewpoints in a civil and meaningful way. Making light of a topic or the overt usage satire are not always the best weapons. In the future, I'll just ignore his posts, I was merely trying to generate an actual discussion on what I deem to be an interesting topic.

I think though, the posting of links is to attempt to give some credence to what one is saying- it's all well and good for me to say "Cheney supports torture" but if I can't back it up with facts, it's just me yammering, much like right-wingers who scream about Hillary being a lesbian (how someone's sexual preferences, true or not, became a criticism of character, I don't know, but they sure like to throw that rumor around a lot without any backup). Admittedly, I don't see the point in posting someone else's commentary, unless it says something funnier or more eloquently than I can (and lots of people say lots of things funnier or more eloquently than I can; it's why those people get paid to do it).

I like to read most of the links posted, though, and I think it's worth taking a look at opposing views, because many times, if the writer is any good, he or she will have some points to make. And if I disagree with the viewpoint, I need to be able to articulate why (a good example is the article condemning the HPV vaccine that Timm posted a while back- read the article thoroughly and it was clear it was playing fast and loose with the facts, but I had to read it through a few times to figure out what was not ringing true, and that improved my critical thinking skills, so thanks for that, Timm. Seriously. ).

What I find irritating, honestly, is people attacking someone's points without reading the links the person has posted to support them. It's like they're so terrified they'll find something to change their minds they won't look at it. Read the link. Or don't comment on it. Whatever. Not so hard. Lord knows I'm not perfect in that respect myself, but at least I try.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I think though, the posting of links is to attempt to give some credence to what one is saying- it's all well and good for me to say "Cheney supports torture" but if I can't back it up with facts, it's just me yammering, much like right-wingers who scream about Hillary being a lesbian (how someone's sexual preferences, true or not, became a criticism of character, I don't know, but they sure like to throw that rumor around a lot without any backup). Admittedly, I don't see the point in posting someone else's commentary, unless it says something funnier or more eloquently than I can (and lots of people say lots of things funnier or more eloquently than I can; it's why those people get paid to do it).

I like to read most of the links posted, though, and I think it's worth taking a look at opposing views, because many times, if the writer is any good, he or she will have some points to make. And if I disagree with the viewpoint, I need to be able to articulate why (a good example is the article condemning the HPV vaccine that Timm posted a while back- read the article thoroughly and it was clear it was playing fast and loose with the facts, but I had to read it through a few times to figure out what was not ringing true, and that improved my critical thinking skills, so thanks for that, Timm. Seriously. ).

What I find irritating, honestly, is people attacking someone's points without reading the links the person has posted to support them. It's like they're so terrified they'll find something to change their minds they won't look at it. Read the link. Or don't comment on it. Whatever. Not so hard. Lord knows I'm not perfect in that respect myself, but at least I try.

You said that in a more respectful manner than I would have. Thanks.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

I won't speak for skippy, but the problem seems to be that most of the links posted are by someone who seems incapable of fully understanding, let alone defending or explaining, anything written by the acutal authors. Partisan hackiness is really irritating, and I think that is where many of the comments and satire come from re the posting of links. I mean, if you think about it, how many people here get ribbed for posting links? Most of the time, the poster gets thanked for the link. So, there must be a reason besides the posting of links for the ribbing...

Right, but then just don't comment on it. Because it makes the respondant look dumb, and depending on the tone of the responding post, also angry and mean to say, "That's a stupid link I didn't read." A lot of the responses aren't so much funny as they are just mean (and I've seen this on both sides, so I'm not pointing fingers at just one side) and that makes me think less of the person responding. It's easy to call names and throw out what one thinks are witty bon mots but in fact are just schoolyard-level bullying. Address the issue or don't. The issue. Must remember that myself.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Right, but then just don't comment on it. Because it makes the respondant look dumb, and depending on the tone of the responding post, also angry and mean to say, "That's a stupid link I didn't read." A lot of the responses aren't so much funny as they are just mean (and I've seen this on both sides, so I'm not pointing fingers at just one side) and that makes me think less of the person responding. It's easy to call names and throw out what one thinks are witty bon mots but in fact are just schoolyard-level bullying. Address the issue or don't. The issue. Must remember that myself.

Genuine Risk,
Does it surprise you that those that complain about links regarding Cheney, despite not having read them, have yet to post a comment concerning Cheney? Disagreeing with views seems ok to me, but childish attacks on the person that posts those differing views shows the bankruptcy of "thought".
Back to discussion of the vice president, please.

[Danzig]

i really wonder tho how much of an open mind people have--if you are far left, or far right, or dyed in the wool conservative or republican, you won't change your mind one whit based on any link anyone posts. if you read it and disagree ( and chances are you will) exactly what have you accomplished by reading it? or the link posted will face accusations by one side of being biased for the other. seems also that one side is all for using such an argument, as long as the other side is the one being swayed to what is right and true!

yeah, dick cheney is what he is. not as bad as some say, or as good as others. he's your typical pol, the R version of harry reid, who is what he is as well. they are party members who toe the party line for ever and ever amen. now pass the collection basket.