Meta Discussion: A serious question for the Democrats.

It looks like A serious question for the Democrats was locked before I could get home. Where did it go wrong?

~Ulrika~

It was the typical Republican spin-cycle, I think.

Personal attacks instead of intelligent dialog. Too bad you didn't get to reply. I was looking forward to hearing your answer.

Interesting that Jeska closed the thread and left the personal attacks instead of the other way around. I don't understand that logic.

It went wrong because it wasn't a serious question, it was a serious attempt to annoy Democrats by posing a question with no particular merit, such as "Would you accept world peace if it meant your own personal Satan was given credit?"

You are wrong Gabe, that was not my intent at all. I was surprised that it was so hard to choose the first scenario. I fully expected it to be a short boring thread; instead the result was quite interesting and enlightening.

I obviously can't speak for what your intent was, but it shouldn't be hard to realize that people resent being led to make a choice that would appear to condone something/someone they are very opposed to. This is even more the case since, in a simple poll such as this, they don't have to choose at all.

I would've picked the first one if it didn't have the "5 consecutive terms of Republican presidents" in it. I don't think the future throngs of corporate slaves with barcodes on their foreheads would forgive me.

~Ulrika~

I didn't comment for a similar reason, but my thought was, there is no way I can project what the leadership should be like for the next 40 years. I've had my share of party line moments, but mostly I vote for the person I think is most qualified.

Honestly I wouldn’t resent at all answering the exact same question inserting President Clinton for President Bush and do not understand why anyone would. Yet, it was obviously something that almost nobody was willing to do. Instead they opted to argue on the merits of the question and personal attacks instead of simply answering it and then giving their personal reason why they answered the way they did. Now that would have been interesting.

My reason for including that was what I percieve as the Democratic party's lust for power and a win at all cost strategy.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


Yeah... how's that going for them?

Hate to be the one to do it but doesn't this fall under..

No it wouldn't really have been that interesting. People don't resent answering the question, they resent the fact that someone with an agenda is asking a question that is trying to lead them very specifically to answer in a particular way. I don't need to hear your weak protests that this isn't the case and that I don't understand what your intent was. These bipartisan political harangues are very tiring from both ends.

*checks her watch*
*looks up*

Hm. Jeska's running late.

*toddles off to take a nap*

More seriously: I think I see what you were trying for, Billy, but the way you phrased things did make it seem like an exercise in partisan jiggery-pokery. I'd have gone with the first option, myself... anything approaching peace in the Middle East is worthwhile, and I've reached the point where I don't really care which party is in power in the States... they all suck.

yay

Politicians. *Shiver* If only they'd put service ahead of personal gain (money, fame, and power).


On the topic of the meta discussion, there is something I wanted to post when I got home but was unable due to the locking. I think what upset people, is that your post was a Loaded Question. Loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend, as in "how long have you been beating your spouse?" There's no real good answer.

Thus, I think the anger in that last thread came from one side reacting to the questions in frustration with the other insisting that they be answered. In fact, the whole thing could have been diffused by entering into a meta discussion and pointing out that you posed a loaded question. Perhaps with that the questions could have been rewritten not to alienate those who were asked to answer.

~Ulrika~

Nope. This is a meta discussion or a discussion about the discussion. If you'll see my post above (and a few other posts in the thread) people are no longer discussing what was in the original thread but why the thread was locked.

In regards to the original thread, think it could have been a good line of questioning, if the questions weren't loaded (see above).

~Ulrika~

OMG! Why would anyone want to do such a thing? This would take 3 thread pages to achieve what could be done so efficiently the way it was set up.

I can name that thread in 4 posts.....

Actually, the real reason it went wrong was because it was a repost of an old thread that's been deleted.

I had some really witty response the last time, but it's been so long that I forgot if I posted it or deleted it because it was too harsh. /shrug

If only is right. I don't think there are more than a handfull of politicians, if that, for either party that adhere to that.

I don’t think that this is really a loaded question under the definition you gave. There is at least a possibility that President Bush succeeds, Iraq becomes a strong ally in the Middle East and that freedom spreads throughout the region. You may not like President Bush personally but there is at least a possibility that he will be looked upon as a visionary when we have 20 years or so to reflect on the end result of our actions today. It is also at least possible that the Democratic Party implodes because of their hatred for Bush. In fact, I think that is happening right now, thus part of the reason for the thread in the first place.

There is also at least a possibility that Iraq will be an utter failure and that nothing good will come of it. The only thing that I will agree has no possibility of happening is the execution of President Bush. If the insurgents do in fact defeat the United States and drive us out of the Middle East it is at least possible that Bin Laden is hailed as a hero and unifies the Middle East like never before. It is also a possibility that because of this that the Democrats regain their lost power.

The thread degraded because of the fact that Democrats were so unwilling to choose #1 for all it’s good simply because President Bush becomes a hero and the Democratic Party becomes insignificant. It is a testament to how deep their mantra of hating Bush runs. The question I posed demonstrated that fact very clearly. The thread blew up because when challenged, to choose such a good outcome simply can’t bring themselves to set aside their hatred of President Bush. Instead they would rather bitch and moan about how unfair the question was because it exposed a weakness inside of them that they did not want to admit.

It is easier to spout off personal attacks and insults instead of addressing a serious problem in the Democratic Party. Personally, I hope this kind of thinking continues because as long as they hold onto their hatred of bush so firmly I do not think they have any chance of regaining the Whitehouse, Senate or House of Representatives, which obviously is fine with me.

Despite the premature closure of the thread, it proved a point effectively. I had hoped to have more discourse and discussion about a relevant issue sewn in the fabric of the Democratic party but am satisfied just the same.

It's definitely a loaded question.

In a nutshell the options were, something good can happen and your ideology fails or something bad can happen and your ideology succeeds. In regards to the first question:

1. Answering in the affirmative shows that the current very unpopular course of action is justified.
   
2. Answering in the negative shows that Democrats are motivated by hatred.

In regards to the second question:

1. Answering in the affirmative shows that Democrats don't want peace to succeed.
   
2. Answering in the negative shows the Democrats don't want their party to succeed.

Below is the proof.

This shows clearly, that because individuals didn't answer the first question in the affirmative, they have been labeled as being motivated by hatred. It's a loaded question.

Again, because the question was loaded, the lack of an affirmative answer brings another accusation of motivation by hatred.

This statement here doesn't seem logical. Instead of wrestling with internal conflicts over the Democratic Party, I believe people were reacting to the loaded (stilted) way in which the questions were phrased.

~Ulrika~

Hmm...this is a tough one. But I would have to say I beat him every 3 weeks, for the past 5 years. But he HAS gotten 9 month vacations, unless he forgets my ice cream. >










Sorry, couldn't help it.


Oh, and in the next election...I can see a democrat being elected as President. I am republican, but this is what usually happens and the power flows back and forth. As long as whoever is in charge does a good job, I support them. I wouldn't want that job EVER. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Not by the definition you quoted. Your definition imposed a requirement that the question contain a fallacy. Everything in both choices is at least possible. How unlikely is debatable but it is not out of the relm of possibility.



It may be, time will tell


This is actually what I do believe.


I believe this too.


Actually I think that it shows that peace is more important than the success of the party, not a desire for the party to fail.



That is correct but not the definition of a loaded question as quoted. There is no fallacy, it all is possible.


Same answer as above.


Perhaps you are right but I submit that personal attacks and insults are the least effective way to say anything intelligently.

Thank you for taking the time to try to understand what I was asking. I appreciate it.

This is the second time you've questioned the definition, so I thought I would give it a good read. The Wikipedia definition is not what I was expecting. (I need to look it over in more detail but I think it might be partially in error.) A loaded question is not a fallacy.

Here's a proper definition. It states:

This is evidence of prior prejudice that biased the formation of your questions. Your beliefs led you to create leading (and loaded) questions that were unanswerable and led to frustration. It really is analogous to stating "how long have you been beating your spouse?" For the innocent there is no way to answer but to attack the question itself.

Yes folks were rough. (Although it could have been worse.) The reason I'm sympathetic is that I find myself dealing with belligerent and irrational mobs often. For instance, the time I mentioned that Willow Zander might be in league with Cthulhu.

~Ulrika~