Good causes, but badly representated

[Random Argument Man]

I may become the official bad guy of the escapist (After Evil Joe).
Note to mod* If it is deemed to offensive, you can close the thread.

After the "Is smoking cool?" topic, I thought "Wow, people can't defend their point". Ok on the smoking part. I advance smoking is taking a risk. The only kind of response I had is "Well I don't wanna die" or "It smells bad".

Sometimes, you see people trying to defend a point, yet they don't know much about it.

Others are just based on impressions
The whole Atheism vs Religion. Religious says Atheists are nutjobs who just want prove god doesn't exist. Atheists are saying that religious people are nutjobs who condemned people on something they deemed offensive to their religion.

Questions:
-Do you think that some causes should have better representatives?
-Do you think, people who doesn't know much should not consider to pick between which sides sounds better?

EDIT: I'm not asking this question on the Escapist community only. I mean on the society in general. (Thank you for the contribution of Mr. Jim_Doki).


Note*This could end on the right to choose vs the right of opinion.
2nd Note* Try to stay on topic. You can use examples, but don't derail the thread too much.

 

[Smiles]

not on this forum, no, cause then I wouldn't be allowed to talk...

 

[jim_doki]

we argue fine here

just look up any of the latest piracy threads to see me at some of my best, particularly the scary new copywrite laws one

if, after all, that is what you are asking/ "Why dont you guys argue better?" because i dont really understand you

 

[Random Argument Man]

(Ignore this post). (Not the thread however).

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

I think all causes should have better representatives. After all, aren't representatives just the guys who shout the loudest?

I do think you should know something on a topic but not necessarily be an expert. Yes, often times representatives are just the ones who are the loudest and know nothing of what they are talking, remember the whole series of tubes thing?

 

[dMighty]

Discussions are good opportunities for learning, people who don't know much about a topic should be encouraged to participate. Even if they do not argue the point well it still shows a desire to participate and, perhaps, to edify themselves.

If you want to have a more nuanced conversation on a topic you can generally find a gem in the muck, depending on the forum.

 

[santaandy]

we argue fine here

just look up any of the latest piracy threads to see me at some of my best, particularly the scary new copywrite laws one

Awww, you noticed.

I have to agree, we are doing fine here. Some trolling happens, yes, but I daresay I've learned a thing or two. The only thing I would like to see avoided is three to five pages of gigantic quote tunnels when two or three people get into it and bring up every point ever (not that I've done that...)

The only complaint I have in real life is when people commit violence in the name of their cause ala PETA. Unlearn-ed people may be annoying to encounter so frequently, but I consider it a mitzvah to educate them (or the reverse).

 

[hypothetical fact]

If you want to limit intelligent debate to the best and brightest fine. Just remember that this would foster extreme elitism, discrimination and an uprising of people that are not quite fit for your perfect representatives ideal because their views are not being addressed. Your idea also relies on the assumption that the less intelligent can not create new ideas to challenge and disprove those of the best and brightest which is dead wrong.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

The problem isn't really the fact there aren't enough good representatives, but rather there is always a minority (on both sides) who will not actually engage in a discussion nor attempt to understand the other persons point of view. Instead they will resort to insult and what basically amounts to textual tantrums. I can find examples all over this forum. Someone says something someone doesn't agree with, they start screaming "Troll". Someone says something that they don't agree with, they run their mouth and start yelling.

Such people are the problem, not the rank and file posters.

 

[black lincon]

I proposed something like this ages ago, it goes back to the creation of the term forum in the book Enders Game. In the book a forum wasn't open, but a place for intellectuals in different areas to debate topics, it was strictly controlled and you had to have licenses to participate(I could be wrong on that). I thought we should set up invite only threads where the OP can Pick the people allowed to post there in an attempt to stem the tide of idiots and bigots and general assholes who come out in some of the more risque discussion.

 

[corporate_gamer]

my first thought after i read your questions was one mr Green. Lovely chap. spokeperson for christian voice (a christian pressure group) who when attacking the athiest bus poster that read 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life' said and i quote

'People don't like being preached at'

which for a defender of any religous group, is just plain silly. So the answer to your question is no, because well thought out and reasoned debates is so much less entertaining than idiots saying extremely stupid things.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm)

 

[Pigeon_Grenade]

my first thought after i read your questions was one mr Green. Lovely chap. spokeperson for christian voice (a christian pressure group) who when attacking the athiest bus poster that read 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life' said and i quote

'People don't like being preached at'

which for a defender of any religous group, is just plain silly. So the answer to your question is no, because well thought out and reasoned debates is so much less entertaining than idiots saying extremely stupid things.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm)

ya sometimes its More Entertaining watching a ham handed Spokesmen Screw everything up, it can make you do your own research on it, though at the same time could make you stay away completly

 

[KeitheyGreg]

i don't think its bad presentation just more of lack of information as a whole on the subject.

ex. Atheism vs Religion. i don't believe ether side could ever win seeing as nobody bared witness to these events. both sides could argue for or against the topic, but nobody witnessed the creation of the universe or the birth of the first man so both arguments are crippled at the knees.

Or poor presentation could come from the fact that people don't feel the need to have any because if somebody proves you wrong they will just belittle them till they disappear, or hold there hands against there ears yelling random noises to just drown you out.

 

[ChocoFace]

people who argue about a topic, not actually knowing what they're talking about, still think They are right. It's what they believe in, unless you prove them otherwise, they will keep saying what They think is right ( even if it actually is wrong ).
Compare it to religion, if you will: People believe in God, because they "know" God exists. Other people don't believe in God because they "know" God doesn't exist, even though the existence ( or non-existence ) of God is impossible to know.