could we please add some feature that bans any argument based around accusing the opponent of "believing the propaganda" ... no matter which side they're on?

it's very tiresome. it does not advance the debate. it is no argument at all. it's what people say when they don't have an actual point to make or they're too lazy to come up with a decent argument against what you've got to say. and i know, because i've done it too.

.

Is this a sore point?

no. it's just quite tiresome. it accomplishes nothing. it turns a decent discussion into something of a pissy little slapfight.

It reminds of that other often-used refrain, "c'mon people, THINK!" As if that added any weight...

Plueeeze...

Don't tell me you never sort of accuse the other side of believing propaganda. Besides, there IS propaganda, and it's legitimate to point it out.

Aerogram said:

It's over-used.

Aerogram said:

I stated very clearly in this thread that I've done it. But I realize what it is and its intent. It's nothing more than laziness and an attempt to stir up the opponent rather than actually discussing the issue.

Please read my post again. I clearly said that I'm guilty of it. But I still think it's stupid, and it causes us all to go round and round in circles, distracting us from what we were really talking about.

Yes, there IS propaganda. But to continually accuse the other side of buying into the propaganda is ridiculous. I trust that many, if not all, of us who are debating this every day have a fairly decent knowledge on the subject and have done some research in order to form their opinion. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but that's what I'm going to assume. We all succumb to propaganda. We all, to some degree, believe what we want to believe. We interpret information to fit into our own pre-established worldview.

So there's no point in sniping about it. We all buy into propaganda, and we all have certain filters against propaganda. It's just a ridiculous argument and distracts from the discussion.


Hell, let's just use THIS thread to talk about propaganda, but can we please just leave it out of the other threads? It derails a thread every time.

AaronFantastic said:

I think the answer is to let others call your arguments what they want. There's no disrespect in doing so as long as there's no personal attack.
[This message was edited Sun Mar 23 12:03:23 PST 2003 by Aerogram]

teller said:

If that's the rationale, then there's plenty of other things to ban.

AaronFantastic said:

Free speech anyone?

Aerogram said:

Oh who's asking for anything to be banned, really...I'm just bitching.

DEAR MODERATORS,

It has come to my attention that certain individuals are clogging up the bandwidth at prince.org by posting an obscene number of articles from various online sources relating to a single topic.

Furthermore, and disappointingly so, these sources are said to include content from bloomberg.com and the washingtontimes.com - hardly pillars of objective and insightful investigative journalism.

News has also reached my office (a crumbling shack somewhere in Tuvalu) that some forumers wish to stifle debate by dictating terms to those who disagree with their views. While such methods may be de rigeur in say, the subversive realm of Iraqi politics, surely you'll agree they have no place in a discussion forum such as this.

There will be a press conference on this matter at the Czarina Ykterina Hotel Ballroom, located at 789 Gorky Plaza, Moscow, Russia. All orgers are invited to attend.

My two kobo


PS: No, the Black Russian cocktails and vodka ain't on me!
[This message was edited Sun Mar 23 13:16:28 PST 2003 by papaa]

Dear Moderators,

It is with sadness that I complain to you that these "I told you so" threads do not contribute to true debate, as they presume to conclude one. Furthermore, they constitute premature threadjaculation.

I urge you to ban those impertinent practices at your earliest convenience.

Aerogram said:

ah, but you're wrong. there was quite a lengthy debate on that thread, following the articles I posted

papaa said:

I see. So, basically, you're saying that you reserve the right to use that propaganda cop-out when you really really want to say something, but don't have a point to make?


k.

AaronFantastic said:

Furthermore, I would like the Org to not make the US flag available on its emoticon page. Why the US and not another country? It's not fair!

Aerogram said:

oh just wait. according to many people here, pretty soon there will only be one country, the USA. so then it will apply to us all, no?

Aerogram said:

Hey, it's prince.org, and last time I checked, Prince has only titled one song after a country: America!

I do think we should get rid of it though. Look what could happen!

AaronFantastic said:

There are worst countries to be conquered by, but personally i'd prefer the French to dominate the world.

Aerogram said:

so would the French.

Dear Moderators,

Why don't you just delete the Site Discussion forum? Does anything worthwhile ever happen here? I think not. You're all smart enough to know what the site does or does not need, and stubborn enough not to consider to strongly the suggestions that might be made here. So lets dispense with the formality and delete this forum.

Now, I assume you've already considered this, and have already made up your mind to keep it, hence its continued existence, so my input has no influence whatsoever, as it should be.

Doves,
Mel!ssa

BanishedBrian said:

Obviously you didn care to get the sarcasm in the lyrics of that song.

AaronFantastic said:

A good idea. I'm sick of people "labelling" each other in attempt to avoid addressing the topic of a post. This includes saying "you've just been suckered by all the war propaganda" and equally "you're just anti-American"

ian said:

fair trade, that last bit. it does make me uncomfortable to use the word "anti-American" however, i do believe that there are people in that forum who believe in their hearts that America is evil and they would love to see it fall. ( for example: http://www.prince.org/msg...&tid=41837 )

but anyway, back to the point: are these types of "non-arguments" to be discouraged, officially?
[This message was edited Mon Mar 24 23:38:27 PST 2003 by AaronFantastic]