What according to you is a perfect discussion ?

No this should not be the approach as every one has his/her own style of thinking and we should not feel bad if someone does not agree with us though discussion looks much better when there are people who agree and disagree both. :)

That is normally the intention and purpose of any discussion that are held in public, but not all take that view, with many just expecting others to agree with them unanimously!

Where you have no winners and no looser and a result for better society and after the discussion you feel like it should continue forever.. :) :)

No this should not be the approach as every one has his/her own style of thinking and we should not feel bad if someone does not agree with us though discussion looks much better when there are people who agree and disagree both. :)

That is normally the intention and purpose of any discussion that are held in public, but not all take that view, with many just expecting others to agree with them unanimously!

Yes, one should never take anything personally, then the whole purpose of discussion gets defeated :)

Where you have no winners and no looser and a result for better society and after the discussion you feel like it should continue forever.. :) :)

Exactly ! I think you have summed it off well, a discussion on an interesting subject can go on and on since there is always something new to add ...

Perfect discussion is that in which they all agreed, and reaches its conslusion

Where you have no winners and no looser and a result for better society and after the discussion you feel like it should continue forever.. :) :)

Exactly ! I think you have summed it off well, a discussion on an interesting subject can go on and on since there is always something new to add ...

Thanks Usha... Because i love to have such discussions..

No this should not be the approach as every one has his/her own style of thinking and we should not feel bad if someone does not agree with us though discussion looks much better when there are people who agree and disagree both. :)

That is normally the intention and purpose of any discussion that are held in public, but not all take that view, with many just expecting others to agree with them unanimously!

Isn't it still better than communism regime in USSR and China when there were no discussions. And isn't it the trend of the day in our own so called LOKTANTRA today?

Perfect discussion is that in which they all agreed, and reaches its conslusion

Reaching conclusion by unanimity is too idealist. There will always be some who will stubbornly stick to their views and not listen to others. also, there may be honest disagreement left at the end. I remember that in athread, Chinmoy and I could not reach an agreed conclusion. Then Chinmoy concluded by saying that let us agree to disagree.

as unanimous view is rare, the decision is taken by majority. This is every where- parliament, executive and courts. There are occasions when courts also decide by majority, one or two judges giving dissenting notes.

No this should not be the approach as every one has his/her own style of thinking and we should not feel bad if someone does not agree with us though discussion looks much better when there are people who agree and disagree both. :)

That is normally the intention and purpose of any discussion that are held in public, but not all take that view, with many just expecting others to agree with them unanimously!

Isn't it still better than communism regime in USSR and China when there were no discussions. And isn't it the trend of the day in our own so called LOKTANTRA today?

In a Communist system, there is more discussion. The discussion is at all levels- local level committees to top level. But when a decision is taken on basis of these discussions, a party view called Party Line is adopted. Once decided, there will be no more discussion and the final decision will be considered as view of entire party. This is called as 'Democratic centralism'. Continuous discussion with no conclusion at any stage and consequently no action is mere wastage of time and such discussion is of no value.

No this should not be the approach as every one has his/her own style of thinking and we should not feel bad if someone does not agree with us though discussion looks much better when there are people who agree and disagree both. :)

That is normally the intention and purpose of any discussion that are held in public, but not all take that view, with many just expecting others to agree with them unanimously!

Isn't it still better than communism regime in USSR and China when there were no discussions. And isn't it the trend of the day in our own so called LOKTANTRA today?

In a Communist system, there is more discussion. The discussion is at all levels- local level committees to top level. But when a decision is taken on basis of these discussions, a party view called Party Line is adopted. Once decided, there will be no more discussion and the final decision will be considered as view of entire party. This is called as 'Democratic centralism'. Continuous discussion with no conclusion at any stage and consequently no action is mere wastage of time and such discussion is of no value.

I think that was the reason I kept it up to USSR period where Politburo had no scope of discussions.

No this should not be the approach as every one has his/her own style of thinking and we should not feel bad if someone does not agree with us though discussion looks much better when there are people who agree and disagree both. :)

That is normally the intention and purpose of any discussion that are held in public, but not all take that view, with many just expecting others to agree with them unanimously!

Isn't it still better than communism regime in USSR and China when there were no discussions. And isn't it the trend of the day in our own so called LOKTANTRA today?

In a Communist system, there is more discussion. The discussion is at all levels- local level committees to top level. But when a decision is taken on basis of these discussions, a party view called Party Line is adopted. Once decided, there will be no more discussion and the final decision will be considered as view of entire party. This is called as 'Democratic centralism'. Continuous discussion with no conclusion at any stage and consequently no action is mere wastage of time and such discussion is of no value.

I think that was the reason I kept it up to USSR period where Politburo had no scope of discussions.

Democratic centralism is Leninist principle. But there can be wrong practice and deviation anywhere. Presently, there is family and dynastic rule in North Korea- a communist state. similarly, in Cuba, when Castro was sick, he handed over authority to his brother. These are mistakes and deviations from Leninist principles. There should be discussion in full at all levels but when a final decision is taken by majority, all should act accordingly whatever be personal view. No action is as bad as no discussion.

In the forums discussion online in anysite. we members have right and freedom to discuss with our own opinions, there is no need to accept the forum thread starts opinion. It is not at all right.

In the forums discussion online in anysite. we members have right and freedom to discuss with our own opinions, there is no need to accept the forum thread starts opinion. It is not at all right.

I agree. Every member will give his views. But these should be well reasoned. also, there should be no repeat of the views. We should follow the Forum Rules of Buddunan. The start opinion is that of the member who created thread. Others may agree or disagree.

In the forums discussion online in anysite. we members have right and freedom to discuss with our own opinions, there is no need to accept the forum thread starts opinion. It is not at all right.

Of course , that is true, understandably falling within the rules and regulations of a forum - There are times when a person feels he is right and only his opinion is the right opinion , will never accept that there may be many ways of looking at an issue and all of them may be valid in their own way...

No this should not be the approach as every one has his/her own style of thinking and we should not feel bad if someone does not agree with us though discussion looks much better when there are people who agree and disagree both. :)

That is normally the intention and purpose of any discussion that are held in public, but not all take that view, with many just expecting others to agree with them unanimously!

Isn't it still better than communism regime in USSR and China when there were no discussions. And isn't it the trend of the day in our own so called LOKTANTRA today?

But you have to bear in mind that USSR no longer exists and China has also opened up quite liberally! As for our Loktantra, the less said the better, freedom of speech/discussion/expression is all upon the whims and fancy of the ones in charge, eg. Mamata Banerjee!!

Perfect discussion should have a good topic which really do sense.It should have a meaning and there should not be any abusive thing.

In the forums discussion online in anysite. we members have right and freedom to discuss with our own opinions, there is no need to accept the forum thread starts opinion. It is not at all right.

Of course , that is true, understandably falling within the rules and regulations of a forum - There are times when a person feels he is right and only his opinion is the right opinion , will never accept that there may be many ways of looking at an issue and all of them may be valid in their own way...

That kind of attitude is rather disconcerting and many users who may have actually something worthwhile but of the opposite nature to contribute will rather keep away from such discussions! Certainly, I do whenever I see something like that in a number of discussions!

No this should not be the approach as every one has his/her own style of thinking and we should not feel bad if someone does not agree with us though discussion looks much better when there are people who agree and disagree both. :)

That is normally the intention and purpose of any discussion that are held in public, but not all take that view, with many just expecting others to agree with them unanimously!

Isn't it still better than communism regime in USSR and China when there were no discussions. And isn't it the trend of the day in our own so called LOKTANTRA today?

But you have to bear in mind that USSR no longer exists and China has also opened up quite liberally! As for our Loktantra, the less said the better, freedom of speech/discussion/expression is all upon the whims and fancy of the ones in charge, eg. Mamata Banerjee!!

China has changed the economic system but still the political system viz. one party- remains intact. Of course, there are wide discussion on all matters within the system.

No this should not be the approach as every one has his/her own style of thinking and we should not feel bad if someone does not agree with us though discussion looks much better when there are people who agree and disagree both. :)

That is normally the intention and purpose of any discussion that are held in public, but not all take that view, with many just expecting others to agree with them unanimously!

Isn't it still better than communism regime in USSR and China when there were no discussions. And isn't it the trend of the day in our own so called LOKTANTRA today?

But you have to bear in mind that USSR no longer exists and China has also opened up quite liberally! As for our Loktantra, the less said the better, freedom of speech/discussion/expression is all upon the whims and fancy of the ones in charge, eg. Mamata Banerjee!!

China has changed the economic system but still the political system viz. one party- remains intact. Of course, there are wide discussion on all matters within the system.

True! And Yet I feel that their one-party system has worked better than our multiple partied democracy! look how much better they have advanced economically than India has managed to do so in spite of having much much more freedom than they ever had!

No this should not be the approach as every one has his/her own style of thinking and we should not feel bad if someone does not agree with us though discussion looks much better when there are people who agree and disagree both. :)

That is normally the intention and purpose of any discussion that are held in public, but not all take that view, with many just expecting others to agree with them unanimously!

Isn't it still better than communism regime in USSR and China when there were no discussions. And isn't it the trend of the day in our own so called LOKTANTRA today?

But you have to bear in mind that USSR no longer exists and China has also opened up quite liberally! As for our Loktantra, the less said the better, freedom of speech/discussion/expression is all upon the whims and fancy of the ones in charge, eg. Mamata Banerjee!!

People definitely don't have the freedom to express themselves, at least not in front of the peoples representatives , since it take an offend them.This happened at Mysore when a person asked one of the MLAs , what he did with the annual fund received for maintaining his constituency since nothing was done there for more than 3 years.The MLA was so angry that he slapped the man,got into his car and drove away.Apparently his followers went and thrashed the poor man again..