Is protesting still good?

[outside looking in]

Perhaps. But I'm still fucking fed up with it.

Yeah, I know....everyone else's insults are fine, but you get fed up if I dare to say anything back.

Shocking.

fuck it. had a lengthy reply explaining why you should at least acknowledge that we are capable of organized thought, but I think it would probably do no good.


control panel, ignore, flavio.

 

[Ardsgaine]

If I say 'X' and someone else says 'not X', one of us has to be wrong. If I thought it was me, I'd change my view accordingly. If it's not me, then it must be the other guy. Why he won't change his view when he's so obviously wrong is beyond me. I certainly wouldn't want to walk around being wrong all the time.

 

[outside looking in]

You know ards, it's not really about being wrong or right. It's about not even acknowledging that when someone says "X" it's really coming from them, but instead just accusing them of regurgitating the BS that Bush spoonfed them.

If someone says "I say X, but you just keep parroting what Mr. Y said - you're not thinking for yourself, you're just a mindless drone" then how do you argue with that? If they won't even acknowledge that you are capable of coherent thought, what chance is there of having a rational discussion?

 

[Ardsgaine]

fuck it. had a lengthy reply explaining why you should at least acknowledge that we are capable of organized thought, but I think it would probably do no good.

As long as all the smart people agree with him, then he must be right. If there are intelligent, thinking people who disagree with him, then he might be wrong. That would mean he would have to re-examine his beliefs, which is a real pain in the ass when your beliefs are so completely disassociated from reality. So when he runs into someone who disagrees with him, he has to deny their intelligence.

control panel, ignore, flavio.

Best policy. He's stopped debating, now he's just fussing.

 

[flavio]

fuck it. had a lengthy reply explaining why you should at least acknowledge that we are capable of organized thought, but I think it would probably do no good.

It's nice that you take so much issue with the way I insulted Gonz. Of course you're still missing the fact that he started this shit. You obviously have are unwilling to even address the fact that he began the personal attacks but just want to paint it as if I was out of line.

Step 1. Gonz questions Flavio's backbone.
Step 2. Flavio questions Gonz's backbone.
Step 3. OLI takes issue with Step 2

Do you see the damn problem here? Geezus.

 

[freako104]

Best policy. He's stopped debating, now he's just fussing.

hes been doing that for a while now

 

[flavio]

If there are intelligent, thinking people who disagree with him, then he might be wrong. That would mean he would have to re-examine his beliefs,

There are intelligent , thinking people who disagree with you and I see no evidence of you re-examining your beliefs.

Of course I'm the only one who needs to do this if you look at it from a hypocritical point of view.

 

[Ardsgaine]

There are intelligent , thinking people who disagree with you and I see no evidence of you re-examining your beliefs.

In the first place, you are missing the point. I don't deny someone's intelligence just because he disagrees with me. I believe that a person can be very smart and still be wrong. I don't assume that he's stupid, or the unwitting dupe of someone's propaganda. I allow the possibility that he might have just followed a very logical, independent, intellectually rigorous bit of reasoning from a set of lousy premises to an extremely bad conclusion.

(I might begin to doubt a person's intelligence, though, if he shows a complete incapacity to understand simple English. That's a different matter entirely.)

In the second place, the reason you don't see me re-examining my beliefs is because nothing you've said has called them into question. I'm not shaken simply by the fact that intelligent people disagree with me, because I know that I'm an intelligent person too. I'm confident in what I believe precisely because I have questioned it and examined it already, and continue to do so on a regular basis.

 

[flavio]

I don't deny someone's intelligence just because he disagrees with me.

No, you normally just call them Socialists right?

In the second place, the reason you don't see me re-examining my beliefs is because nothing you've said has called them into question. I'm not shaken simply by the fact that intelligent people disagree with me, because I know that I'm an intelligent person too. I'm confident in what I believe precisely because I have questioned it and examined it already, and continue to do so on a regular basis.

Same here.

when your beliefs are so completely disassociated from reality.

See now that's the hypocritical part. See, when my beliefs are attacked it's ok. If I say anything back about the attackers beliefs somehow I'm the one being unreasonable?

That's how we get this type of phenomenon:

Step 1. Gonz questions Flavio's backbone.
Step 2. Flavio questions Gonz's backbone.
Step 3. OLI takes issue with Step 2

I believe that a person can be very smart and still be wrong.

So do I. In fact, I believe the great majority of people here a fairly intelligent. There's no way I would waste my time debating with a bunch of idiots. The problem is the one-sided hypocritical personal attacks.

We could say you buy into the spoonfed liberal socialist bullshit just as easily

Yes, it happens often enough.

Now what's worse?:
1. Socialist
2. Hussein supporter
3. No backbone
4. Duped by propaganda
5. Disassociated from reality

....doesn't really matter does it?

 

[ris]

If I say 'X' and someone else says 'not X', one of us has to be wrong. If I thought it was me, I'd change my view accordingly. If it's not me, then it must be the other guy. Why he won't change his view when he's so obviously wrong is beyond me. I certainly wouldn't want to walk around being wrong all the time.

alternatively you are both wrong and the answer is somewhere else, the mostly likely outcome of polarised views. if you don't accept that at least some of the time you are going to be wrong then i would can only imagine the mind is so closed.

if your statement is true for how everyone formulates views then there is no possible room for debate, because you are either agree or not. i think the the statement 'why he won't change it is beyond me' is the crunch - at least attempting to understand how opposing views are formed and giving them the respect you would demand of your own.

and that's what's missing from this forum at the moment - the respect of others and their views. you may not agree with them but they demand the same respect of view that you would wish.

 

[Leslie]

 

[Ardsgaine]

alternatively you are both wrong and the answer is somewhere else, the mostly likely outcome of polarised views.

X or not-X pretty much covers the possibilities. Yes, there are times when both people are wrong, but that would be a case of one person saying X and the other person saying Y. The more polarized the views are, the more likely it is that one of them is right and the other wrong.

if you don't accept that at least some of the time you are going to be wrong then i would can only imagine the mind is so closed.

I know that there are times when I am wrong. There are times when I am wrong about a concrete piece of data, and there are times when I misapply a principle. Those are open to adjustment as I learn more. What I'm not wrong about, and what I won't ever change, are my fundamental principles.

if your statement is true for how everyone formulates views then there is no possible room for debate, because you are either agree or not.

Sure there is. I have seen quite lengthy debates occur between people who agree on basic principles. I've also had productive exchanges with people who disagree with me on basic principles. My discussions with Favio haven't been of that nature. If you want to say that's my fault, go ahead.

i think the the statement 'why he won't change it is beyond me' is the crunch - at least attempting to understand how opposing views are formed and giving them the respect you would demand of your own.

I do try to understand other people's views, and I give them the respect they deserve. Not all views deserve the same respect, as I think you'll agree. There are some you might think I should respect that I don't, but there are others that we agree deserve no respect at all.

and that's what's missing from this forum at the moment - the respect of others and their views. you may not agree with them but they demand the same respect of view that you would wish.

Flavio is getting exactly the same amount of respect that he gives to others.

 

[flavio]

Flavio is getting exactly the same amount of respect that he gives to others.

How do you figure that Ards? I think you'll find that I am rarely the one to start personal attacks in a debate....although I will respond to them.

Take this thread for example ....

In which the administrator of the forum started this thread expressly to bash a group of people that don't agree with him. Then begins insulting me later.

 

[Ardsgaine]

How do you figure that Ards? I think you'll find that I am rarely the one to start personal attacks in a debate....although I will respond to them.

The first debate we ever had... It actually began between you and Jan, and I stepped in because I was tired of your insulting behavior towards her. Read it and you will see that this attitude comes through: people who don't share your views are intellectually inferior. You described her as "weird" and "close-minded", said that she could not be taken seriously, and described her point of view as "silly notions." You also used numerous curse words during the exchange, and ignored the point she was trying to make so that you could portray her as a shallow person. That's a pretty good description of your modus operandi in a debate.

 

[flavio]

In one of the first debates since you came back to OTC you called me a socialist and a bunch of other terms I don't appreciate.

I'm sure if you look around you may be able to find a couple other threads where I've insulted people as well.

Point is I rarely start the personal attacks. I'll bet you I can find quite a few examples where I have been attacked first just in the Real World in the last couple weeks though.

Used to be a while back that there would be a few insults from members here and there back and forth. Since the topic of the Iraq situation has started it's a whole different story though.

Insults against anti-war people are ignored or even supported but anything going the other way is jumped all over. There some good examples right in this thread if you care to have a look.

 

[Ardsgaine]

In one of the first debates since you came back to OTC you called me a socialist and a bunch of other terms I don't appreciate.

The socialist remark was in response to your assertion that the people who support the war are being duped by Bush's propaganda, basically saying that those who support the war are mindless dupes who don't think for themselves. That is an insult. In referring to you as a socialist, I wasn't name calling. I didn't say, "you socialist," as if had delivered a devastating insult and that was all it took to refute you. I was showing how your attitude fits in with socialist theory. I didn't even think you would find it controversial-- not everyone is ashamed of being a socialist. You said you're not a socialist, so I invited you to pick the label you think fits. Your response was to claim that your views are so unique in the world that no label fits you. Yeah, right.

At this point, you've stopped posting anything with any content to it. You've lost the debate about the war, as we can plainly see just by turning on the news. You don't have a defensible position, so you're just sniping at people. I'm tired of it, and I'm not going to waste my time with it anymore. This is my last post on the subject.

 

[flavio]

You've lost the debate about the war, as we can plainly see just by turning on the news.

No, that one is going to be on for quite awhile. Did you think that America's military superiority solves the debate? It was never in question.

But it looks as if you can't really debate the hypocritical stance that's been going on here as far as personal attacks go you find it suffecient to try to simply declare me wrong about a different subject and then run away.

What this all boils down to is that I would be more than happy to set some forum rules on what constitutes reasonable debate if they were applied uniformly and consistently. As it is that's not happening.

 

[ris]

alternatively you are both wrong and the answer is somewhere else, the mostly likely outcome of polarised views.

X or not-X pretty much covers the possibilities. Yes, there are times when both people are wrong, but that would be a case of one person saying X and the other person saying Y. The more polarized the views are, the more likely it is that one of them is right and the other wrong.

i would take the position that the more polarised the views the higher the likelihood that both are wrong as the entrenching act of polarisation removes both parties from the realities of a given question or situation. polarising a view almost inevitably creates a situation where additional information is taken with added bias [not withstanding an accepted amount of bias regardless].

i reject two dimensional arguments as a self-perpuating cycle of mutual wrong-ness.

 

[Ardsgaine]

i would take the position that the more polarised the views the higher the likelihood that both are wrong as the entrenching act of polarisation removes both parties from the realities of a given question or situation.

If someone says that the Soviet Union was a worker's paradise and I say it was a worker's hell, those are polarized positions. How does the fact that they are polarized make both of them equally wrong?

 

[ris]

i do not see that either can be 100% correct either, so there is some margin for an element of wrong.