You people

Post Reply New Topic

You mean humans are supposed to do it differently? No wonder I've had problems!

Just don't use the 'Nazi' argument; that's been done so often, there's a name for it (unfortunately, I can't remember what it is), which usually indicates the discussions' over...

Just don't use the 'Nazi' argument; that's been done so often, there's a name for it (unfortunately, I can't remember what it is), which usually indicates the discussions' over...

Just don't use the 'Nazi' argument; that's been done so often, there's a name for it (unfortunately, I can't remember what it is), which usually indicates the discussions' over...

I think people do need a little nurturing... just not in the form of being allowed to throw fits, call names, etc. Healthy nurturing... which I think you can do without allowing emotion to cloud over your reasoning to the point that you no longer care about the truth (and whether or not you believe the truth) you merely care about being right. I think that's why I am always on the fence. I am always open to the other side of an argument when it is presented intelligently because I might be wrong. And I want to hear what people who think I am wrong actually believe. But not in a way that it seems like they believe what they want dogmatically. It is very important to me that they present it rationally so that I can consider the facts (and not the driving emotions that one person might experience, but would be different for me). Then I can make my decisions, either by altering my views or by explaining why I disagree.

I guess I am an adherent to the whole "gentleman's discussion" approach. where everyone sits down and discusses things quietly and calmly and while they might be passionate about what they believe, it is never to the point that they are overcome. I think discussions should transcend who is right and wrong. Mostly because much of what we believe is not a case of right or wrong but of interpretation and opinion derived from facts we encounter. Who is to insist that your interpretation must be wrong and mine must be right. In reality it is more likely that we are both partially right and partially wrong, and the truth is somewhere in between both sides.

Which is why I tend to pick a little on both sides. To find that spot in the middle that maximizes reliability, effectiveness, and "correctness" while minimizing flaws, fallacies, and "incorrectness". In almost every argument both sides have compelling arguments, I fail to see why the optimal belief isn't a combination of the two arguments... since most arguments only have small aspects that are mutually exclusive.

Take abortion for an example. Anti-abortion wants no abortion for interesting reasons, and Pro-abortion wants abortion for interesting reasons. The only mutually exclusive aspect is in the actual act of abortion (allowing it or not). So I think an optimal solution is to examine the facts and institute regulated abortion with mandatory counseling to prevent rash decision-making that could lead to depression or repeat abortions by teenagers. Decision-making like this at least considers both sides and their arguments... instead of dismissing them entirely because you feel you are right 100% therefore they must be wrong 100%. Other people have some good and valid views, they should be allowed to express those views and have them seriously considered. You never know... you might be the one who is wrong and they could be the one who is right. If you are a true seeker of the truth you will never know unless you listen to them. And I don't mean pay them lip service and the beat them with the proverbial mallet of your awesome truth or attack them like the aforementioned nuclear badger. I mean actually listen to them.

it does produce a rather disturbing mental picture. But maybe not as disturbing as Japanese tentacle porn.

Okay... Now you pissed Me off! I happen to like Japanese Tentacle Porn. Although I acknowledge that I am disturbingly mental, so it is what it is, what it is, what it is... Where was I?

Anyway... It occurs to me (I know this has been pointed out already in various ways) that posting this topic under a thin veneer of tongue-in-cheek/ostensibly mildly self deprecating 'humor' is still a pretty underhanded way to pick a fight with the folks who brawl too much, while poo-pooing the folks who brawl too much. Self-satisfying on so many levels.

Congratulations. This one is a riot. I laughed so hard I cried.

Only a Nazi would try to forbid us from using the "Nazi" argument. Jeez, pakled, you're such a Nazi. Razz

(And it's Godwin's Law, by the way)

Just don't use the 'Nazi' argument; that's been done so often, there's a name for it (unfortunately, I can't remember what it is), which usually indicates the discussions' over...

Only a Nazi would try to forbid us from using the "Nazi" argument. Jeez, pakled, you're such a Nazi.

(And it's Godwin's Law, by the way)

Okay... Now you pissed Me off! I happen to like Japanese Tentacle Porn. Although I acknowledge that I am disturbingly mental, so it is what it is, what it is, what it is... Where was I?

Anyway... It occurs to me (I know this has been pointed out already in various ways) that posting this topic under a thin veneer of tongue-in-cheek/ostensibly mildly self deprecating 'humor' is still a pretty underhanded way to pick a fight with the folks who brawl too much, while poo-pooing the folks who brawl too much. Self-satisfying on so many levels.

Congratulations. This one is a riot. I laughed so hard I cried.

Alot of people didn't have a problem with Emphrella or whatever her name was generally tried to make the contributions here based on IQ ( her mistaken view of maturity) in that she basically insulted everyone there claiming her only wish was civilized discussion. The op hasn't taken that route though I kind of see it as partly acknowledging that situation as a topic.

Godwin is an internet Nazi.

I think its more of an issue that people don't like how the logic approach comes off to them. Without the emotional element it comes off abrasive. The need for others to force their opinions or fight with other people reeks of emotional insecurity. In the end does it matter? no people develop at different paces while I've made my personal mission on self development others revel in their flaws, insecurities, etc. Thats their choice but asking for a civilized discussion hardly constitutes as igniting a flame war.

Alot of people didn't have a problem with Emphrella or whatever her name was generally tried to make the contributions here based on IQ ( her mistaken view of maturity) in that she basically insulted everyone there claiming her only wish was civilized discussion. The op hasn't taken that route though I kind of see it as partly acknowledging that situation as a topic. In general there was a time in which people could sit down and address these contradictions in views without screaming "idiot , your wrong because (science, religion, insert reason here) says so. I think this is a nostaglic idea that will never come into fruition based on the society wide need or wish to embrace in their emotions.

Your mom is an internet Nazi.

its why I stopped adhering to any position. Vocally at least. Both sides are filled with psychopaths. During the election I wouldn't even tell people if I was democrat or republican and who I would vote for (If I was back in the States).