Don't you see how appealing to authority in this manner displays a complete lack of critical thinking? How many years of study were there before Kemper was built, for example? How many studies said Union Station and Jazz District would be moneymakers? Government studies mean next to nothing...or rather, they mean whatever the current administration wants you to believe, and this applies more or less across the board. We know that Union Station and Jazz District aren't making money, but we aren't asking why enough. We aren't looking to see who did profit from those ventures. And we certainly aren't applying our historical knowledge and experience to critically examine the arena's financing, because, well, we want an arena, dammit, so all opposition be damned! It is painfully obvious.KCPowercat wrote:There has been like 3 years of study done by the sports commission that says it will be a success.
What specific arguments do you think people skimmed over and should pay closer attention to?
I have -- and you should have, as an intelligent, thinking, concerned citizen -- zero faith that they're going to do it right. The financing deal is pretty scary and they've given us nothing but failure for the last n decades. Hoping they won't this time is fine, but believing they won't because some study by a commission with a vested interest in seeing an arena built says they won't...that's like believing George Bush should be re-elected because Rush Limbaugh says so. Believing they won't because you don't want them to is foolish. Believing they won't because they have a good track record of honesty, integrity, and success might be the only situation where I wouldn't advocate extreme critical analysis. We don't have that track record.
My 'specific argument' I want you to pay attention to is only that I think the people here, particularly the admins/mods, should be more critical, that's all. I'd like to see an arena, albeit with different financing, but this is what we're getting and there's nothing we can really do about it now...fine. However, when the entire "staff" vehemently supports one viewpoint with zero criticism, and that viewpoint happens to be the city's viewpoint, it discourages critical thinking as well as critical discussion by dissenters. It creates a sort of groupthink where opposing ideas, no matter how logical or sensible, are disregarded and sometimes even ridiculed.
In other words, find things in the city's plans to criticize. Don't assume everything is good, de-emphasizing negatives and criticism. That is the OPPOSITE of what interested, concerned citizens should be doing. Analyze opposing arguments with an open mind, not a "they can't be right, they are jerks, they are the enemy" attitude (ala CAAT, Danaher, Enterprise). That's all I'm really asking. Begging, even. Cause I really liked coming here for discussions before everyone turned into hater jerks.
