Just so y'all remember

[#FF0000]

http://i.imgur.com/IooAe.jpg

[RGacky3]

I suggest everytime Bud logs on he reviews this before posting anything.

[ComradeMan]

Most politicians would fail that "test"...:laugh:

[¿Que?]

Reminds me of when I get rejected by a woman. I never seem to get passed the first box, lol.

[a rebel]

funny, but oh so true

[a rebel]

Reminds me of when I get rejected by a woman. I never seem to get passed the first box, lol.

please tell me your talking about the chart, and not a bad sex joke

[¿Que?]

please tell me your talking about the chart, and not a bad sex joke
If it was a bad sex joke, I wouldn't be able to explain it.

[Wanted Man]

This is sympathetic, but not very realistic. Almost everyone is capable of breaching, and probably has breached all of these rules at some point.

[¿Que?]

This is sympathetic, but not very realistic. Almost everyone is capable of breaching, and probably has breached all of these rules at some point.
I agree. Furthermore, you have the problem of #3 on that list. If every argument needs justification, epistemically you end up with an infinite regress.

[Thug Lessons]

http://i.imgur.com/IooAe.jpg

Beautiful little strawman. But seriously, don't do it again.

[Red Commissar]

http://i.imgur.com/IooAe.jpg

Well then, in the manner of most befitting of certain areas in the forum, you are a REACTIONARY FASCIST LIBERAL

QED

I kid of course

[Devrim]

"Can you envisage anything that will change your mind on the topic?"

In many of the discussions on RevLeft if anything means anything in the argument, I would have to answer 'no' to this. I don't think that when you get to middle age, you are suddenly going to change positions that you have held since your youth because somebody comes up with a particularly stunning argument.

I think that the whole chart also misses the point of webforums. It is not just a person whose positions that you are arguing against, but all the others who read it. It is not like a discussion that you have with an individual.

Devrim

[hatzel]

I think that the whole chart also misses the point of webforums. It is not just a person whose positions that you are arguing against, but all the others who read it. It is not like a discussion that you have with an individual.

This raises the question of whether we are discussing or debating. Relinquishing your position isn't a particularly solid debating technique, though in discussion, it might be admirable. If you can't back up your position, that is...

[Ele'ill]

"Do you disagree with the other person's argument- have stats/sources to back up your position but happen to be cooking brown rice that's almost done? Already proved your point on this topic with this person five thousand times before? Make a comment vaguely related to the discussion at hand then Courage Wolf them in spoiler tags. Move on to next item in flow chart some time in the future if you want"

[#FF0000]

"Can you envisage anything that will change your mind on the topic?"

In many of the discussions on RevLeft if anything means anything in the argument, I would have to answer 'no' to this. I don't think that when you get to middle age, you are suddenly going to change positions that you have held since your youth because somebody comes up with a particularly stunning argument.

I think that the whole chart also misses the point of webforums. It is not just a person whose positions that you are arguing against, but all the others who read it. It is not like a discussion that you have with an individual.

Devrim

They're just general rules, some of which are better than others for Internet discussion.

I don't like the "can something change your mind" line from it either, because at this point I am pretty firm in my convictions about capitalism being an exploitative system. One would have to come at me with a pretty mindblowing argument that I've never heard before to change my mind on that and I just don't see it happening.

[El Chuncho]

Agreed, I do not think many can change my mind about opinions I have had for years without super arguments I have never heard before.

[RATM-Eubie]

dumb

[hatzel]

dumb

No you :glare:

[GallowsBird]

Are the red boxes the correct answers? Or have I been getting it all wrong all these years!:tt2:

[#FF0000]

dumb

why

[Devrim]

Agreed, I do not think many can change my mind about opinions I have had for years without super arguments I have never heard before.

By the time you get to my age, you have heard pretty much all of the arguments before. I can't for example imagine a new argument coming up on the question of parliamentarianism.

I think maybe you can divide it into two levels, analysis and theory. On the level of analysis of course we can be wrong. We can misjudge the balance of forces and make mistakes. There I think you can be persuaded. On a theoretical level it would take much more of an earth shattering event.

To give an example a few years ago I argued within our organisation that we were on the edge of a coup. To me that seemed to be the case. The majority of our organisation in Turkey argued against it. We didn't have one, and I was wrong. In this sort of case ı think that debate can influence your ideas, but more importantly it was the facts on the ground that made the position I was holding untenable, and then I became more open to others ideas.

On a more theoretical level, for example the parliamentarianism question, you would obviously need a bigger real change. If a left-wing party took office and made real improvements in working class living standards, I would obviously have to change my ideas. I can't see it happening though.

Devrim