sisboombaa

After several years of reading the posts on OPP I have yet to notice anyone change their opinion on a major issue. Does anyone think maybe we are wasting our time and energy participating in these discussions, arguments, opinion sharing, name calling, etc. One thing I have noticed is the high number of participants that are closed minded in an insulting way driven by anger. Hopefully, most of you realize anger is one of several possible responses to fear. With out fear there can be no anger. To operate under the control of anger is not the most intelligent way to solve problems.

Repeating my question; are we wasting our time?

Common_Sense_Matters

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Is it the purpose of the OPP to change one's opinion?

In the short time I have been a member I have met some truly wonderful individuals... As well as some who I admittedly don't care for...

I have shared and exchanged ideas and opinions on a variety of topics...

I will admit to having learned (and to having educated others)...

For the most part I believe I have been civil to the other forum members... I can only think of two times I was uncivil and I apologized on both occasions... And my apology was accepted both times...

I would debate that all anger stems from fear... But certainly fear is one source for anger...

I often feel as though I am wasting my time, But I am also constantly reminded (by my friends...) that my input is welcomed and desired...


Sure do wish some of the personal attacks would stop... Even when not directed at myself it becomes annoying to have to read through all the derogatory posts in search of a gem...



Good post, sir/ma'am (?)

Very thought provoking

MarvinSussman

There are two problems to be overcome. 1. People have to learn how to reason with statements that are obviously true and that use deductive logic. 2. People have to learn how to recognize and accept such statements.

For example, we sometimes discuss Congressional spending and taxing without changing opinions. Let's try overcoming those two problems by the following attempt at reason and see how many minds are changed:

1. The primary goal of a rational economy is to produce maximum infrastructure and prosperity.
2. Maximum Congressional spending yields maximum infrastructure and maximum after-tax savings (deficit spending).
3. Maximum progressive taxation yields minimum inflation.
4. Maximum Congressional spending plus maximum progressive taxation yields maximum infrastructure plus minimum inflation plus maximum after-tax savings (prosperity).

Will any conservative argue with that reasoning? No!
Will every conservative accept that reasoning? NO!

That's the problem!

Lonewolf

I have felt that way many times

pafret Loc: Northeast

In a simple answer, yes. As a qualified answer the presence of so many ilogical, ill-informed, biased posters, allows me to hone my own views which, as you will no doubt recognize, are immensely superior to all others.

Seriously, the only value to this forum that I see is that these rabid rants and flights of fancy forces me to think about these issues and to clarify what basis I use to judge the validity or morality of these posts. In short, I do not think that the majority of posters here are ever going to change their minds on any topic.

My responses to various posts have become shorter and shorter because it simply is too much effort to expend, in an essentially useless endeavor, changing anyone's viewpoint. Those who are of like mind need only a few words of agreement and the others would need beating over the head with an encyclopedia to effect a change in their opinion.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Your premises are carefully selected and lead only to your conclusion. There are a few principles you ignore such as:

You cannot spend your way to prosperity by borrowing money and devaluing the currency.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Maximum taxation produces maximum destruction.
Inflation is not driven by taxation, it is a function of the devaluing of the currency.

Congress produces no good or service which is compensated by money. Any funds they have must be taken forcibly from the individuals or companies who produced it. A very early example of this force was the use of the m*****a by George Washington to suppress the Whiskey R*******n in western Pennsylvania.
The issue was taxation of moonshine which the farmers produced, as a means of preserving their crops, which was readily converted into cash.

Government is inherently inefficient and anything it regulates or controls inevitably becomes too expensive or is produced in inadequate quantities. See the VA as an example and consider the lack of medical attention decreed by government fiat in England as well as Canada.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

If you believe we come here to change a persons thoughts the game is over before you even begin...

I come to share/learn from others and get their opinions but not with intent of changing their minds.. Individuality is what keeps this country afloat.... It is only marred by the egotistical, Eccentric know it all that believes their opinion is the only opinion of worth... T***h be known it is their opinion that holds the least value.. Evidence of such would be one just like in this thread.. Obvious and rather lost you may choose to ignore or take the bait~~~It is what YOU choose..

I doubt anyone actually changes their mind, but I would venture the journey is a challenge and you always learn something you didn't know..
👍😊😉

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Good morning lovely LindaJoy...

I have changed my mind a few times...

But usually it concerns my perception of a member...

Pleasant to discover someone is more than you thought they were...

Sad to discover someone is less...

Always a pleasure to read one of lovely LindaJoy's posts...

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Good morning to you as well and Thank You, CD....

I have changed my mind on occasion too..I thoroughly enjoy the learning curve to it as well..

Likewise, your comment about members is absolutely right.. Both a pleasure and disappointment when that happens... You know why?? Because it pronounces to oneself their original opinion was wrong<~ 🙃😉 lollol, we don’t like having to admit we were wrong..

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Exactly correct...
I h**e being wrong...
If it were ever to happen...
I mean...
I'm not always right..
But I don't believe I have ever been wrong...
At least not in the sense that I couldn't convince myself of the rightness of my being wrong...

In t***h I am a very guarded individual...
I am friendly to all, but friends with few...
It usually takes years before I consider someone a friend..

But on the OPP (my first forum in almost two decades... And the last one didn't end well..) I have been very quick to label individuals as either friend or foe...
My mistake...
Not theirs...
I am sure they have always been true to themselves...

I am sure that I know who I am..
Most days...
All others...
Makes it difficult to have a meaningful conversation...

Or it's the great equalizer...

sisboombaa

Linda, after reading your post I had to reread my post at the beginning of this thread. No where did I say I wished to change anyone's opinion on anything. The bulk of my position was I am amazed that there is so much commenting and so little responses insinuating "oh yea, never thought of it that way" or "gosh you just raised a good point". I don't care who thinks what. I will discuss points of interest to someone for their evaluation if I think they are inflicting harm on themselves or others. However, their response is theirs to make. I don't wish to change them against their will.

I've witnessed people changing their mind all the time. My mind and opinions have changed many many times over the years for various reasons. My thoughts now are so different from what they were when I was much younger due too experiences and, yes, something someone said. I believe it is important that we all try to keep an open mind. I also think a "totally" open mind is an improbable goal to achieve.

woodguru

I think that a repetition of the facts consistently represented has a cumulative effect that offsets the constant barrage of rhetoric as new more compelling facts emerge. While there is a particularly obstinate hard fringe, the center does absorb facts at a certain point.

woodguru

How about a dialog about cutting waste and fraud the way the GAO is capable of if Congress simply v**es on their reports?

Or using CBO services before v****g on things like ill conceived and poorly crafted tax cuts, all exercises in logic, something the GOP is allergic too.