Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6765)	4/19/2004 9:06:55 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

The difference is that, by criticizing a plan based upon logic that is irrelevant, if not explicitly dysfunctional one is engaging in a monologue, not a dialogue. I honestly don't understand what you mean by that. If only one person bears the burden of proposing solutions, leaving everyone else open to freely criticize, but bear no responsibility for providing alternatives, this thread will quickly become a critic's corner, not a place for discussion or a debate. If someone proposes an idea it should be analyzed and debated. Not only do I see no need to provide an alternative, but also there is the fact that doing nothing or doing exactly what we are doing now is an alternative. "Doing something" is not always better. Not only can actions intended to solve a problem make the problem worse, they can also sometimes cause other problems that are worse then the original problem, or they can just be useless while taking up time, money and thought that could either be used to think of a better solution or could be devoted to a different problem where good solutions are more readily available. For example I would argue against socialist medicine/"universal health care", despite not having a solution that will solve the specific problems that many of its supporters want to solve. Of course that would be OT here because its domestic policy but I'm not actually debating the subject just using it as an example to illustrate my more general point. If one person proposes a plan and someone else argues against it and then the first person responds and so on you are having a discussion which is also a debate. And that debate can be well thought out and logical and potentially interesting and thought provoking all without proposing an alternative. It can also be partisan, bitter, illogical, and/or boring when an alternative is proposed. Arguing that a proposal will not work is not the same as pointless sniping or ad-hominem attack, or mindless partisanship. And in any case all of these things can still be present when an alternative solution is proposed. But they have an obligation of abiding by the terms the moderator has laid forth in order that we all have the best level of thought provoking discussion on this thread. I thought the conversation was reasonably thought provoking, at least more so then most inner discussion boards. Are you hinting that a rule of posting on this thread is that you may not argue against anyone's ideas without having an alternative solution to their real or perceived problem? What about the alternative idea that there is no good solutions available at this time? I would probably argue that this is likely the case in the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis but even if it wasn't true in this specific case there are going to be times when it is. Edit - If your hint means you are implmenting such a rule you probably should modify the thread header to explicitly state it. Tim