You see, I don't think anybody is trying to change anyone's opinion here, as SF mentioned. Most of use are pretty opinionated in the first place and just enjoy a decent discussion or even a civil argument or we wouldn't be in FSA. It is rare for anybody to do a 180 on anything, but I think we all influence each other's reasoning, at least those of us who offer some reasoning behind our opinions. I'll never be influenced by someone who just comes into a discussion forum and makes a non-sequtor statement like "George Bush saved the Transamerica Pyramid" with no corroboration, source, evidence, or even any reasoning behind the statement. If one can't defend his statements, then I can safely dismiss them as mere rhetoric. You, on the other hand will attempt to back up your positions, even if you really have no evidence. You will almost always offer an explanation of your reasoning. It is often bizarre and off point, but it is analysis at least and a point for further debate. In the process of attacking your position, I determine certain issues where you are indeed foolish and I can easily dismantle your case. But there are other issues where you make a good point that is more difficult to assault. Those points tend to hand around in the back of my mind where they influence my opinions. In your case, government excess. While the depth of your anti--government rhetoric approaches anarchy, you do sometimes make good points concerning excess government interference in commerce and social matters. You go overboard, of course, and throw out the baby with the bathwater, but that is OK. My position will be more moderate and prudent . . . but still it has been influenced by martin, because at some point in my analysis I will mentally be making an imagined martin challenge and modifying my position to be stronger. I cannot similarly temper my position using certain other folk's points because they provide no analysis and I just can not understand how they think. You, NoLimit, CParso, and several others . . . even marc and LC, do influence me and make my arguments stronger by forcing me to consider your potential challenges, which I understand because you have shared your reasoning.
i get it, you havent so much changed your mind or been convinced of anything as much as you have considered new defenses for your current positions. i am, i am trying hard to convince people to see it my way. going overboard is the mark of a champion.
No need for the veiled shots, Red. My statement was clearly not meant to be taken literally, just dramatic license to illustrate my belief that a Democrat administration would not have been as tough on terrorists worldwide as Bush has been.
Not exactly. I have replaced certain weak portions of my philosophy with certain strong portions of yours which strengthens my position. Therefore you have influenced me. Yes, it involves changing my mind and being convinced. The point being, you don't have to totally reverse me on an issue to have influenced me. Questioning whether the government needs to be involved in a situation is now something I ask myself more often. All because of you. And I detect a certain prudence in your opinions that did not exist two years ago? I suggest that you also have been influenced.
:wink: I know it. I was being dramatic, too. I simply believe that any US administration would have taken action after 9/11 and such a statement has no basis. I think most administrations would have taken a more prudent course than this one has. And I would enjoy a grand, long argument over this, of course. The veiled suggestion (not a shot) actually was that I wish you would offer more of the reasoning that goes into your political beliefs, as you have done (excellently) concerning LSU sports in the Den. But it is apparent that you dislike getting involved very deeply in a political discussion (perhaps because you lose your temper easily :grin: ). But most likely it is because you are wise and prudent. You do not engage me in the logic, counterpoint, and polemics of a debate, at which I am very good. It is for the same reasons that I do not engage you in an exchange of wit. The best generals pick their battles carefully.
thats more like it. now my ego is getting the credit it deserved. i dunno. sometimes i think i seem mean so i try to tone it down a bit. but the meat and potaters of my opinions only becomes a more extreme version of itself. i have two really good real-world friends with opposing views that i hear all the time. one is basically the same as red and he voted for kerry, and the other is an loony anarcho-capitalist. in my mind they are both extreme and i am in the middle. and dont forget my helpful long term goal of changing the world from a bunch of wizard-loving murderers into rational atheists.
