Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    The Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    One path
    Posts
    3,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Your right, I should have either omitted it, or put in a smiley/s.

    I agree about the AI part; but that’s the issue with today’s version of debate. It’s factoid/data regurgitation. An AI would beat most humans at that. Maybe not rainman...
    Indeed, these are supposed to back-up individuals taste and opinions giving/serving them life instead of leaving them feeling like husks only allowed to march in one direction. These are supposed to serve life and not divide them from understanding/culture as Kant would've said.
    Last edited by Tiwack; 2019-05-05 at 07:43 PM.
    If you knew the candle was fire then the meal was cooked a long time ago.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Socrates himself was a sophist of sorts.
    that's as true as claiming Jung was a follower of Freud.
    which is to say not.

    lie all you want, the lack of factual evidence for your claims will always show the truth.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Socrates himself was a sophist of sorts. But he valued “Truth” as well, as the early sophists did.

    I am not against debate, I am against data/factoid regurgitation we call debate today.
    Then don't make statements that can be refuted by data/factoids. Simple enough.
    Your problem is that you’re more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by I am disappoint View Post
    Who determines who is a liar and who is telling the truth? Everybody believes they are right and their opponents are wrong, so they are telling the truth and the others are lying.

    AOC is a dumb, self-absorbed cunt with no qualifications. She's literally a barista.
    Just a quick point of contention in what you are saying. Believing you are right, does not mean you believe you are telling the truth. Many folks connected to the ACA knowingly lied and admitted to lying because they believed the ACA was the correct course and thought they needed to lie to sell it.

    AOC herself admitted to Anderson Cooper that providing bad data/wrong information is OK as long as you are on the right side - which of course everyone believe they are.

    So I would say you are correct in that they think they are "right". Just saying, some will knowingly lie based on their own personal moral convictions.

    Of course the danger in the philosophy that AOC lives by is that it's the exact same philosophy that defends Trump's lies. Neither side seems to see it as they both excuse their own lack of moral behavior because "they are the right ones", instead of understanding that being morally bankrupt and corrupt removes any high-ground you have into pushing your agenda, even if it is the better course.
    Last edited by Ragedaug; 2019-05-05 at 07:50 PM.

    "Take the time to sit down and talk with your adversaries. You will learn something, and they will learn something from you. When two enemies are talking, they are not fighting. It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. So keep the conversation going."
    ~ Daryl Davis

  5. #65
    Merely a Setback Connal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    29,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Malikath View Post
    that's as true as claiming Jung was a follower of Freud.
    which is to say not.

    lie all you want, the lack of factual evidence for your claims will always show the truth.
    Socrates was a continuation of Parmenides line, which saw everything as true. And Gorgias who saw nothing as true. Both are right.

    As for Jung and Freud, Jung was his follower, till he saw, (like Socrates did of the sophists in his time), that he was only paying attention to one aspect of the psyche. (Sex/Materialism, and also seeing the unconscious as a trash heap, instead of something more.)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Give Sethrak Blizz View Post
    Then don't make statements that can be refuted by data/factoids. Simple enough.

    Data and factoids are not practical and do not take human life into account.
    Last edited by Connal; 2019-05-05 at 07:50 PM.
    Vocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    These are not lies, they're not even falsehoods; you're not even representing him accurately.
    Than prove me wrong? Every successful country that doesn't have minimum wage either has strong union or the government pays companies for raising workers wages(singapoore).

    He basically said minimum wage causes unemployment and it does but a small percentage. He also than went on to rant about unions which are the reason those countries can do away with unions. Union were demonized by both him and by conservatives in the untied states.

    Israel practices all three methods. Unions, government payouts, and minimum wage.
    Last edited by ViolenceJackRespectsWomen; 2019-05-05 at 07:59 PM.
    Violence Jack Respects Women!

  7. #67
    The Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    One path
    Posts
    3,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Socrates was a continuation of Parmenides line, which saw everything as true. And Gorgias who saw nothing as true. Both are right.

    As for Jung and Freud, Jung was his follower, till he saw, (like Socrates did of the sophists in his time), that he was only paying attention to one aspect of the psyche. (Sex/Materialism)

    - - - Updated - - -




    Data and factoids are not practical and do not take human life into account.
    You're broaching Manichaeism here and it merely matters where you're coming from and headed when factoids are brought up in debate. They're as you say impractical if you've no opinion or purpose to rattling them off beyond yourself/fitting in.
    If you knew the candle was fire then the meal was cooked a long time ago.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Online, meanwhile, the call to “debate” is increasingly a gendered demand, made by men as a way of attacking women with whose opinions they disagree. “‘Debate me’ is a tactic of attrition,” says the writer and critic Sarah Ditum. “When some guy shows up in my email, or on Twitter, or in comments demanding ‘a debate’, he’s not after a back-and-forth argumentation closing in on a conclusion; he’s after throwing up enough dust that I ultimately decide stating my opinion is more trouble than it’s worth.”

    The US author and journalist Leigh Alexander agrees. “For a certain kind of man,” she observes, “who is either too privileged or otherwise too sheltered to have engaged much with the meat of life, the field of debate is the only place he encounters issues. Because he has no skin in the game, everything is just a thought experiment. Right now the world is like: ‘Excuse me sir, would you please move over? Can you listen to what I’m saying? Can you stop touching me, can you stop hurting me, can you take no for an answer?’ And these guys, these children, go ‘Debate me, debate me, debate me.’ It’s pathetic.”
    So these two women who play eternal victims try to make it a gender war. This is what victim complex,misandry and penis envy does to you. They are afraid of being called out on their bullshit and destroyed by facts so ofcourse they dont want to debate. All they want is their cosy echo chamber.

  9. #69
    Merely a Setback Connal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    29,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiwack View Post
    You're broaching Manichaeism here and it merely matters where you're coming from and headed when factoids are brought up in debate. They're as you say impractical if you've no opinion or purpose to rattling them off beyond yourself/fitting in.
    That’s what I mean, yes. If you only state a fact, but not how that fact will impact people, then it’s impractical.
    Vocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit.

  10. #70
    Public debate is bullshit. Nobody is allowed to finish their line of thought without interruptions nor are they required to be knowledgeable about what they're talking about, which results in ridiculous statements.

  11. #71
    The Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    One path
    Posts
    3,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Darya View Post
    Public debate is bullshit. Nobody is allowed to finish their line of thought without interruptions nor are they required to be knowledgeable about what they're talking about, which results in ridiculous statements.
    True, It may be bs at times, I see it more as practice of my own wit and virtues combined with opportunity to learn and help. Despite its often conflicting nature I find it far preferable to the hell that is war. Life is an exercise in exceptions and a journey all learn to navigate.
    If you knew the candle was fire then the meal was cooked a long time ago.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by ViolenceJackRespectsWomen View Post
    Than prove me wrong?
    they don't have to, you have to provide proof for your claims to start with.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiwack View Post
    True, It may be bs at times, I see it more as practice of my own wit and virtues combined with opportunity to learn and help. Despite its often conflicting nature I find it far preferable to the hell that is war. Life is an exercise in exceptions and a journey all learn to navigate.
    It always is. I've yet to find anyone that debates anti-immigration people and know what the fuck they're talking about, they always come unprepared and lack knowledge. I don't know if it's intentional or if they just don't give a shit.

    I've yet to find anyone that debates feminists and know what the fuck they're talking about.
    Last edited by Darya; 2019-05-05 at 08:14 PM.

  14. #74
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    60,572
    Quote Originally Posted by Give Sethrak Blizz View Post
    @Endus why are you no longer a mod?
    Because I stepped down, voluntarily, because I didn't have time to do the job any more.

    Anyone claiming I was asked or forced to step down because of my conduct as a moderator is, to be blunt, lying out their collective butts. Speaking to Malikath's bullshit claim specifically, I made a point while modding of not participating in threads and moderating them at the same time, outside of incredibly obvious stuff, like User A calling User B a "festering fucksack of shitnuggets", when I was neither A nor B.

    A year and a half after I stepped down, they still won't let it go.

  15. #75
    Sunlight is the best disinfectant which is why flat earthers aren't commonly found preaching to the masses, same go for anti vaxxers, you'll get the few who are too stupid to know when they are beaten but most slink away back into the darkness and echo chambers.
    If you can listen to history and the millions upon millions dead from communism and say it needs another shot its a mental illness or you weren't listening.
    But we should never stop people from speaking in public, just video tape and enjoy the amusement you get from watching them be entirely wrong.


    The trouble comes when you want to stop people from talking.. because you know they have a point and if they are allowed to speak it.. you might lose comrades.
    Make sure if you still play your voice is heard if it matters to you, Mine wasn't.
    https://simplearmory.com/#/us/aman't...ectable/mounts
    BFA is another failure on Blizzard for leaving out information yet again despite promising communication with players while Azerite armor is an unfun system forced onto us to keep us grinding.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Malikath View Post
    they don't have to, you have to provide proof for your claims to start with.
    Do I really have to prove that Thomas is against labor unions and minimum wage increases... It's like his whole shtick.
    Last edited by ViolenceJackRespectsWomen; 2019-05-05 at 08:43 PM.
    Violence Jack Respects Women!

  17. #77
    The Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    One path
    Posts
    3,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Darya View Post
    It always is. I've yet to find anyone that debates anti-immigration people and know what the fuck they're talking about, they always come unprepared and lack knowledge. I don't know if it's intentional or if they just don't give a shit.

    I've yet to find anyone that debates feminists and know what the fuck they're talking about.
    Once the mind is made up details are forgotten or omitted in fluster, perhaps you can help them out or learn a bit yourself if only about them? Believing in a cause is one thing, persuading others to it is another. I doubt they don't give a shit but it's naturally frustrating to deal with people you're in disagreement with. It often takes precedence to what they're trying to accomplish in the first place, when insecure or if it's foreign to them from having stuck with people thinking largely the same as them their whole lives.
    If you knew the candle was fire then the meal was cooked a long time ago.

  18. #78
    Some times I wonder if im the one who is insane these days.

  19. #79
    Scarab Lord Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    4,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Darya View Post
    Public debate is bullshit. Nobody is allowed to finish their line of thought without interruptions nor are they required to be knowledgeable about what they're talking about, which results in ridiculous statements.
    Part of this is intrinsic to the purpose of many so called "debates". In general most of these discussions, especially on emotionally sensitive topics, are not debates in the literal sense at all, but merely a way of solidifying ones identity. "Winning" and "Losing" are not really concepts at play at this sort of "debate", because both sides are completely immobile in their positions. Instead they are means to codify the tenants of your position, and display a sort of team pride in the position you chose.

    The Politics forum is a perfect example of this, and I have almost completely left it in the last couple months because of it. Not because other people were doing it that way, but because I found that I was. I would argue that most of what we are framing as "debate" is nothing more then emotional responses to challenges to our belief system. Actual rational debate is basically impossible with a mass audience, any more then 2-3 people and emotional responses will dominate the conversation.

  20. #80
    The Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    One path
    Posts
    3,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Has lost its way View Post
    Some times I wonder if im the one who is insane these days.
    Don't, but if you do then "So what?"

    A lot of times it's not inaccurate to find the environment a little sick too.

    That's valid, it'd just become boring without challenge and resistance to try to push/see past.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Part of this is intrinsic to the purpose of many so called "debates". In general most of these discussions, especially on emotionally sensitive topics, are not debates in the literal sense at all, but merely a way of solidifying ones identity. "Winning" and "Losing" are not really concepts at play at this sort of "debate", because both sides are completely immobile in their positions. Instead they are means to codify the tenants of your position, and display a sort of team pride in the position you chose.

    The Politics forum is a perfect example of this, and I have almost completely left it in the last couple months because of it. Not because other people were doing it that way, but because I found that I was. I would argue that most of what we are framing as "debate" is nothing more then emotional responses to challenges to our belief system. Actual rational debate is basically impossible with a mass audience, any more then 2-3 people and emotional responses will dominate the conversation.
    Understandable but why can't there be value in that too? Gain a deeper understanding of your own position or the people you're trying to understand/change the minds of? Camaraderie is fine while hooliganism isn't. Both are natural results of common beliefs, it's a fine line however between reinforcing polarization and tearing it down - when there's no emphasis on all the other stuff there's shared in/a share in it often goes bad. Emotional responses often ask for attention and unless rampant are best left ignored in debate environments as they don't bring much to the topic being discussed. Most are just beating the drum or discriminating anyway, as if not merely agreeing/disagreeing would be enough.
    If you knew the candle was fire then the meal was cooked a long time ago.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •