Quagmire Arguments

Just a quick note: I'm really not interested in hosting a debate on abortion at this time, or, really, ever. Comments aimed at starting an abortion argument in this thread will be ruthlessly suppressed.

If you absolutely must share your opinions on the subject, go over to Scalzi's post, and leave your comments there. He loves that sort of thing.

I would add that there could be a third, perhaps so closely related to the second that it's not stand-alone: physician assisted suicide. I like the image you create with "brain-sucking quagmire arguments." Sums it up nicely for me. Now, I get to think hard about what it is about a brain-sucking quagmire argument that makes it so. Just what I need, another dissertation distraction. Thanks, Chad.

There is clearly no such thing as a brain sucking quagmire argument, and anyone who thinks there are is an idiot. Nothing you say will convince me otherwise, and will only prompt me to restate my unassailably correct position in different language.

If one could navigate the gravitational pull of the brain-sucking arguments involved, it would be interesting to compile a list and try to tease out the common element, then analyze what it is that short-circuits people's ability to hold rational debate generally. For instance, on atheist weblogs I frequent, experienced commenters avoid like the plague any mention of "defining" atheism or whether it is a religion. 300 comments later, no consensus, no common ground, just a lot of pointless argument. Happens over and over.

"Prayer in schools" is another.
"The 'N' word in American Literature."
"National health insurance"

Or maybe the common thread is that rational debate is not taught in schools, most people don't know how to do it, and we're all pretty much inclined to just chatter and throw dung at each other. Prisoners of emotion.

You forgot Mac v. PC!

When one posts about abortion, one resigns one's self to a long thread where people reiterate the same things they've been saying for years. However, the comment thread is at least mostly civil, which I think is nice.

What about string theory? ;)

But, wait, wait! Chad said, "brain-sucking quagmire arguments of American politics." Doesn't that exclude: The 'N' word in American Literature, Mac v. PC, and string theory? Not that including those in the domain of politics wouldn't provide some comic relief as we watch politicians try to establish positions on string theory. Maybe we should be relieved that there are a few areas where it isn't so easy to legislate?

[She backs away slowly while muttering to herself.....must navigate the gravitational pull...must get back to the dissertation.... must navigate the gravitational pull... must get back to the dissertation....]

Nah, PC v. Mac is totally political: It's like red state/blue state, only with geeks.

I get the feeling the appropriate definition here is whatever causes bad Usenet flashback.

String Theory, if it is a Theory of Everything, will resolve the debate about Red-state pickup-driving PC-owning gun-slinging Right-to-Lifers versus blue-state Mac-owning treehugging guncontrolling abortionists. Right?

I think that's called "supersymmetry."

How about 90% of the debate related to education.

I think the abortion and gun control debates are qualitatively different than most of the other debates mentioned here. They're all pointless and unproductive, for the most part, but the abortion and gun control arguments feature one or more of the sides accusing the other side of supporting or condoning mass murder as a matter of course.

I have yet to hear a vi user say that using emacs is morally equivalent to killing hundreds of innocent children (though I'm sure I can count on some smartass to do that in the next comment or two), while that sort of accusation usually shows up in the first ten posts or so of any abortion or gun control argument.

Scalzi,
PC v Mac ??? I thought the definition of geek was someone who used
Mac (or Linux), and wouldn't touch Windows with a ten foot pole. Or do I live on a different planet?

So, Blogs are like mini-Usenets for baby-killing mormon nazis.

Wow. I just went over to Scalzi's post, and the very first comment starts "Well, being LDS,...."

So, Blogs are like mini-Usenets for baby-killing mormon nazis.

Who use emacs, yes.

One is reminded of the arguments about slavery. I wonder if the US were still letting new states into the union, if there would be arguments over whether they would be gun states or non gun states.