when it comes to politics, Evil and Blue are abusive, or not

[blue adept]

Okay Barohar, bring it on. show me how the so called abuse of chick-fil-a's ceo was abuse.

[blue adept]

Just as I thought, absolutely nothing to say in defense.

[HomeyG]

Try the Arcade, no game players here.

[blue adept]

Try the Arcade, no game players here.

I prefer board games from avalon hill, or squad leader. and as I said, people don't want intelligent conversation, if they did they wouldn't deny certain truths.

[bigbass]

I prefer board games from avalon hill, or squad leader. and as I said, people don't want intelligent conversation, if they did they wouldn't deny certain truths.

Blue, try these on for size, it's the seven steps to an "Intelligent Conversation", these are actually written for a face to face conversation but they can also be applied to an online forum. My guess is that if these are applied to the Fence Post, it would grow and flourish once again.

Here is how to prepare for an Intelligent Conversation.

(1) Accept the other person WILL disagree with you.

This stops a lot of people right away. An Intelligent Conversation is not “cram your ideas down the other person’s throat”. The whole point of an Intelligent Conversation is to try and see the other person’s perspective. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t automatically make you wrong or stupid. Or them wrong or stupid!

It is best not to care if the other person comes around to your way of thinking or not. Your objective is not to prove the other person wrong, but to LEARN if your perspective is the most correct and useful.

If you want to have a conversation with someone that agrees with you, you can do that by yourself.

(2) No name calling or personal attacks. Ever!

This is an absolute requirement. Rather than saying “You’re a dumba$$,” try “I disagree with that view, and here are my reasons why.”

Focus on ideas and concepts, not on the person sharing those ideas and concepts.

Telling someone why you think their idea is incorrect is vastly different than telling someone they’re stupid for thinking that way.

The first way will keep them open to what you’re saying, the second will make them defensive and they will stop listening.

(3) Always be polite.

There are many things included in this ground-rule:

Listen first (Don’t interrupt.)

Be respectful and courteous (Don’t be condescending, rude or dismissive.)

Give the other people a chance to be heard (Don’t be a ‘ball hog’ and do all the talking.)

A bad example is the way discussions are held on cable news or talk shows. They are trying to get people to watch and sell advertising much more than they are trying to help you become better informed.

A good example? A well respected journalist is perhaps is the way it supposed to be done. How does Barbara Walter have a conversation vs Howard Stern? (I’m using these as an example of their style, not their substance.)

(4) Try and understand from their point of view.

Try listening to just the words the other person is using. Repeat back to the person what they just said, and see if you got it right before sharing your opinion. Ask them politely to explain to you again if you did not correctly understand what they are communicating.

Where many people get caught up is they hear what they want to hear. They filter what they hear through their own beliefs. Try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes.

For example, I like baseball more than football. Some people think that means I hate football. That’s not what I said — I like football too — but there is an assumption on the meaning.

“You shall listen to all sides and filter them for yourself.” — Walt Whitman

(5) Be willing to check your facts, and admit when you need more information or need to do more research.

“I don’t know” or “I don’t know enough” is not a bad thing.

Nobody knows everything, and there will be times people know things that you don’t. Stubbornly sticking to incorrect facts and information defeats the purpose of having an Intelligent Conversation.

Having an open mind has got to be one of the hardest things to do. But it can be one of the most rewarding.

This is really hard to do with topics like politics and religion. There may even be topics that have to be off limits, and cannot be discussed.

(6) Separate the emotional from the factual.

There are times you’ll feel a certain way about something just because. That’s OK. Everyone has things they believe that are not rooted in any fact.

There are things you associate very powerful positive or negative feelings with that hugely influence how you feel. Even if the facts contradict how you feel.

Accept your feelings, and accept other people’s feelings. This where you have to exercise self control, as feelings are not likely to change.

(7) Be humble in victory and gracious in defeat.

Nobody likes a gloating winner and nobody likes a bitter loser.

If you do persuade others to see things your way, be kind and tread lightly, or you may change their mind back. So no bragging or boasting about how smart you are or how right you are.

If you have changed your mind and now agree with someone else’s point of view, be grateful to have learned something new. It is not a contest to be won or lost.

[armyda]

the seven steps to an "Intelligent Conversation",

This is the closest I could find to a standing ovation.

[HoosierHelen]

This is the closest I could find to a standing ovation.

These seven steps to an 'Intelligent Conversation" only work when all parties of the conversation follow the seven steps. A standing ovation is deserved when all 7 steps are an active part of a discussion. Kind of like reading a 'STOP' sign. If we don't stop....it isn't very effective.

[blue adept]

Blue, try these on for size, it's the seven steps to an "Intelligent Conversation", these are actually written for a face to face conversation but they can also be applied to an online forum. My guess is that if these are applied to the Fence Post, it would grow and flourish once again.

Here is how to prepare for an Intelligent Conversation.

(1) Accept the other person WILL disagree with you.

This stops a lot of people right away. An Intelligent Conversation is not “cram your ideas down the other person’s throat”. The whole point of an Intelligent Conversation is to try and see the other person’s perspective. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t automatically make you wrong or stupid. Or them wrong or stupid!

It is best not to care if the other person comes around to your way of thinking or not. Your objective is not to prove the other person wrong, but to LEARN if your perspective is the most correct and useful.

If you want to have a conversation with someone that agrees with you, you can do that by yourself.

(2) No name calling or personal attacks. Ever!

This is an absolute requirement. Rather than saying “You’re a dumba$$,” try “I disagree with that view, and here are my reasons why.”

Focus on ideas and concepts, not on the person sharing those ideas and concepts.

Telling someone why you think their idea is incorrect is vastly different than telling someone they’re stupid for thinking that way.

The first way will keep them open to what you’re saying, the second will make them defensive and they will stop listening.

(3) Always be polite.

There are many things included in this ground-rule:

Listen first (Don’t interrupt.)

Be respectful and courteous (Don’t be condescending, rude or dismissive.)

Give the other people a chance to be heard (Don’t be a ‘ball hog’ and do all the talking.)

A bad example is the way discussions are held on cable news or talk shows. They are trying to get people to watch and sell advertising much more than they are trying to help you become better informed.

A good example? A well respected journalist is perhaps is the way it supposed to be done. How does Barbara Walter have a conversation vs Howard Stern? (I’m using these as an example of their style, not their substance.)

(4) Try and understand from their point of view.

Try listening to just the words the other person is using. Repeat back to the person what they just said, and see if you got it right before sharing your opinion. Ask them politely to explain to you again if you did not correctly understand what they are communicating.

Where many people get caught up is they hear what they want to hear. They filter what they hear through their own beliefs. Try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes.

For example, I like baseball more than football. Some people think that means I hate football. That’s not what I said — I like football too — but there is an assumption on the meaning.

“You shall listen to all sides and filter them for yourself.” — Walt Whitman

(5) Be willing to check your facts, and admit when you need more information or need to do more research.

“I don’t know” or “I don’t know enough” is not a bad thing.

Nobody knows everything, and there will be times people know things that you don’t. Stubbornly sticking to incorrect facts and information defeats the purpose of having an Intelligent Conversation.

Having an open mind has got to be one of the hardest things to do. But it can be one of the most rewarding.

This is really hard to do with topics like politics and religion. There may even be topics that have to be off limits, and cannot be discussed.

(6) Separate the emotional from the factual.

There are times you’ll feel a certain way about something just because. That’s OK. Everyone has things they believe that are not rooted in any fact.

There are things you associate very powerful positive or negative feelings with that hugely influence how you feel. Even if the facts contradict how you feel.

Accept your feelings, and accept other people’s feelings. This where you have to exercise self control, as feelings are not likely to change.

(7) Be humble in victory and gracious in defeat.

Nobody likes a gloating winner and nobody likes a bitter loser.

If you do persuade others to see things your way, be kind and tread lightly, or you may change their mind back. So no bragging or boasting about how smart you are or how right you are.

If you have changed your mind and now agree with someone else’s point of view, be grateful to have learned something new. It is not a contest to be won or lost.

What a joke, I don't remember cramming anything down anybodies throat, anymore than anybodies crammed them down my throat. That being said, when I try to have an intelligent conversation and your side throws "pot calling kettle" at me, I can see how much you people really want an honest conversation. I am not the one throwing names. I will stick to what I actually said, if you believe you have the right to take away others rights, then you are a Nazi. If you fall within this definition, then ,I did call you a Nazi!

[bigbass]

What a joke, I don't remember cramming anything down anybodies throat, anymore than anybodies crammed them down my throat. That being said, when I try to have an intelligent conversation and your side throws "pot calling kettle" at me, I can see how much you people really want an honest conversation. I am not the one throwing names. I will stick to what I actually said, if you believe you have the right to take away others rights, then you are a Nazi. If you fall within this definition, then ,I did call you a Nazi!

My side Blue? I am not on a side.

[blue adept]

Blue, try these on for size, it's the seven steps to an "Intelligent Conversation", these are actually written for a face to face conversation but they can also be applied to an online forum. My guess is that if these are applied to the Fence Post, it would grow and flourish once again.

Here is how to prepare for an Intelligent Conversation.


(2) No name calling or personal attacks. Ever!

This is an absolute requirement. Rather than saying “You’re a dumba$$,” try “I disagree with that view, and here are my reasons why.”



(3) Always be polite.



Be respectful and courteous (Don’t be condescending, rude or dismissive.)



Try listening to just the words the other person is using. Repeat back to the person what they just said, and see if you got it right before sharing your opinion. Ask them politely to explain to you again if you did not correctly understand what they are communicating.



(6) Separate the emotional from the factual.





If you have changed your mind and now agree with someone else’s point of view, be grateful to have learned something new. It is not a contest to be won or lost.

Me thinks someone needs a hug! So sorry that you were cut so deep by a little shot of good old fashion truth. I will leave you alone now so you can assume your roll as "King of the Fence Post".

My side Blue? I am not on a side.

You sir are on the side of hypocrites, you who talk of having intelligent conversations, and resort to name calling, and denounce said name-calling, and as for separating fact from fantasy, I usually do, and separating emotion from factual, you sir are talking about the religious, not me.

[bigbass]

You sir are on the side of hypocrites, you who talk of having intelligent conversations, and resort to name calling, and denounce said name-calling, and as for separating fact from fantasy, I usually do, and separating emotion from factual, you sir are talking about the religious, not me.

Blue, if you really want to find out what happened to the Fence Post, take a close look at who was left posting after everyone else left. If you are willing to learn the truth you will. The Fence Post didn't die Blue, it was murdered.

[evilkumquat]

Blue, if you really want to find out what happened to the Fence Post, take a close look at who was left posting after everyone else left. If you are willing to learn the truth you will. The Fence Post didn't die Blue, it was murdered.

And the Oscar for "Most Dramatic Exaggerated Hyperbole" goes to...

[bigbass]

And the Oscar for "Most Dramatic Exaggerated Hyperbole" goes to...

Call it what you want Evil but the fact of the matter is, if you can't agree to disagree and the only way you feel you can get your point across is by belittling and berating, you either one, don't know how to communicate your point or two, you don't have a valid point to begin with. Unfortunately I believe the people responsible for the erosion of the Fence Post to the point where it is at today, have valid points, they just don't know how to deliver them or they don't know when to quit once they have. There are 4-5 people left posting on here, why can't anyone accept the real reason why?

[blue adept]

Call it what you want Evil but the fact of the matter is, if you can't agree to disagree and the only way you feel you can get your point across is by belittling and berating, you either one, don't know how to communicate your point or two, you don't have a valid point to begin with. Unfortunately I believe the people responsible for the erosion of the Fence Post to the point where it is at today, have valid points, they just don't know how to deliver them or they don't know when to quit once they have. There are 4-5 people left posting on here, why can't anyone accept the real reason why?

So you are claiming that I, and I alone am responsible for the death of the FP. So be it. The points I was trying to make weren't just good points, they were facts, and not just facts as I see them. If part of the fence post want to believe in the fantasy that is creationism, or want to continue to take away, or lobby to take away, other peoples rights, I will become extremely vocal. If the only way to win an argument with these ultra religious nuts is to outshout them, I will! By the way, forums generally go through dieing off cycles, it is normal.

[evilkumquat]

Call it what you want Evil but the fact of the matter is, if you can't agree to disagree and the only way you feel you can get your point across is by belittling and berating, you either one, don't know how to communicate your point or two, you don't have a valid point to begin with. Unfortunately I believe the people responsible for the erosion of the Fence Post to the point where it is at today, have valid points, they just don't know how to deliver them or they don't know when to quit once they have. There are 4-5 people left posting on here, why can't anyone accept the real reason why?

I can't help but notice the Paul Ryan thread has over a thousand views since its creation a week ago. Granted, many of those could be spambots, but even if just half are legitimate, that means it had over five hundred views but only thirty replies.

If there are, in truth, only "five or six" of us still posting, is it likely that each of us have viewed that particular thread an average of a hundred times each, or is it more likely that plenty of people have viewed that thread but did not choose to post in it?

Some, I will graciously grant you, may not post a response for fear of having their comments scrutinized.

It is also just as likely that many don't post because they agree with whatever someone has posted and do not feel the need to clutter the thread with duplicate ideas.

I for one read many threads in which I don't actively participate if I feel those who are posting are making whatever point I would make myself.

[HomeyG]

I started the thread on Ryan's selection as VP with the word "Thoughts". First couple of post responded with their thoughts then it went down hill from there. We went from Ryan's thugs roughing up an old man to a demonizing discussion of the Chick-fil-a incident. We are given a long list of the evils of Republicans and conservatism followed up with someone calling one party just as bad as Nazis. Next thing you know we are leveling personal attacks at one or another. If this is our "intelligent discussion" its no wonder many don't participate. But, I suspect a moderator will get the last word, and it will be "CLOSED".

[edeevee]

I started the thread on Ryan's selection as VP with the word "Thoughts". First couple of post responded with their thoughts then it went down hill from there. We went from Ryan's thugs roughing up an old man to a demonizing discussion of the Chick-fil-a incident. We are given a long list of the evils of Republicans and conservatism followed up with someone calling one party just as bad as Nazis. Next thing you know we are leveling personal attacks at one or another. If this is our "intelligent discussion" its no wonder many don't participate. But, I suspect a moderator will get the last word, and it will be "CLOSED".

Okay Homey, here are my thoughts. I think Romney made a big mistake. Unless there is a major screw up on Obama's part, I think Romney can kiss any chance at winning this election goodbye. Most voters made up their minds a long time ago. They are squarely on the right or the left. The only votes left are the ones that stray toward the middle. Romney had a chance with some of them because of his history as a moderate Republican. They might be willing to ignore his more conservative stance on the issues this time around, dismissing them as just electioneering. Choosing Ryan though - that cements him as a tea party leaning R and, I don't want to hurt your feelings but, that translates to an awful lot of those in the middle as "bat **** crazy". In a tight race he reached out to the one faction that definitely would not have voted for Obama. IMO, it wasn't the smartest of moves.

And then there's Ryan himself - who comes with a ton of baggage like wanting to privatize both Social Security and Medicare, or wanting to do away with capital gains -- the only "income" tax most of the wealthy in this country currently pay. In addition, he likes to brag about staying close to his roots -- yet he has an investment company that's registered in Florida so he can avoid paying Wisconsin income taxes. And then there's the question that still hasn't gone all the way away ... Did he use information he gleaned from committee meetings about failing banks to bolster his own portfolio? Some serious economics geeks think there is definitely something fishy there.

Of course, insider trading wasn't illegal back then. Registering a company in another state (or country) in order to dodge taxes where you actually live and work is still not illegal. That doesn't make it right though.

Actively structuring your business so you don't have to pay taxes is the moral equivalent of a welfare queen having more babies to increase her benefits. If the liberals can figure out how to get that message across -- Romney/Ryan will be toast come November.

[HomeyG]

Okay Homey, here are my thoughts. I think Romney made a big mistake. Unless there is a major screw up on Obama's part, I think Romney can kiss any chance at winning this election goodbye. Most voters made up their minds a long time ago. They are squarely on the right or the left. The only votes left are the ones that stray toward the middle. Romney had a chance with some of them because of his history as a moderate Republican. They might be willing to ignore his more conservative stance on the issues this time around, dismissing them as just electioneering. Choosing Ryan though - that cements him as a tea party leaning R and, I don't want to hurt your feelings but, that translates to an awful lot of those in the middle as "bat **** crazy". In a tight race he reached out to the one faction that definitely would not have voted for Obama. IMO, it wasn't the smartest of moves.

And then there's Ryan himself - who comes with a ton of baggage like wanting to privatize both Social Security and Medicare, or wanting to do away with capital gains -- the only "income" tax most of the wealthy in this country currently pay. In addition, he likes to brag about staying close to his roots -- yet he has an investment company that's registered in Florida so he can avoid paying Wisconsin income taxes. And then there's the question that still hasn't gone all the way away ... Did he use information he gleaned from committee meetings about failing banks to bolster his own portfolio? Some serious economics geeks think there is definitely something fishy there.

Of course, insider trading wasn't illegal back then. Registering a company in another state (or country) in order to dodge taxes where you actually live and work is still not illegal. That doesn't make it right though.

Actively structuring your business so you don't have to pay taxes is the moral equivalent of a welfare queen having more babies to increase her benefits. If the liberals can figure out how to get that message across -- Romney/Ryan will be toast come November.

For my own clarification, and maybe others, you mentioned that Ryan has an investment company in Florida to avoid paying Wisconsin taxes. Help me out, couldn't find anything out on that one.

My first thought when I read Ryan's budget was to compare it with the version passed by the Senate, but as you know I couldn't find one, at least not within the last three years. But I guess that doesn't matter because under most politicians their philosophy is that if you got a buck coming in, spend a buck and a quarter.

You might be right that Romney/Ryan will be toast if the Democrats can keep from discussing anything about unemployment being over 8 percent, gasoline hovering around 4 bucks a gallon, an ever-growing debt ceiling, the highest deficit ever and still growing. To capsulate all these thoughts into one word it would be the "Economy." The Obama/Biden ticket has to avoid all discussions about the economy to win in November.

[barohar]

Okay Barohar, bring it on. show me how the so called abuse of chick-fil-a's ceo was abuse.

Blue- sorry for not responding sooner. I have been traveling for work and just had the opportunity to catch up. I don't always check the FP daily.

I just think that attacking an individual for having an opinion when interviewed, its not like he held a press conference, he was asked a question and responded, is uncalled for. He didn't refuse to serve anyone, as far as I know there were no incidence with the kiss in.

The thread we were in was about the VP selection not about chick-fil-a. I also believe there were some names thrown around like bigot and something else. The name calling to me is abusive and out of place given the subject of the thread.

And your tone is already showing you are primed for a conflict. Why?

[blue adept]

Blue- sorry for not responding sooner. I have been traveling for work and just had the opportunity to catch up. I don't always check the FP daily.

I just think that attacking an individual for having an opinion when interviewed, its not like he held a press conference, he was asked a question and responded, is uncalled for. He didn't refuse to serve anyone, as far as I know there were no incidence with the kiss in.

The thread we were in was about the VP selection not about chick-fil-a. I also believe there were some names thrown around like bigot and something else. The name calling to me is abusive and out of place given the subject of the thread.

And your tone is already showing you are primed for a conflict. Why?

I was in the military,during the cold war, every thing I view as an attack is an attack against me. If you do not care to have a meaningful conversation, please don't waste my time. As for the word bigot, I don't remember if anyone used it, but if they did, and it was used against those that are against those that are gay, colored, different religion, or other things,and it was used correctly, and that is not a problem. This misplaced trust in someone that would not think of putting his own life on the line, is totally wrong. I am not saying Obama is better, I am saying, chickenhawks, should get into line, to put themselves, and their children, into the military, to prove their points.