|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 03/24/2007 : 10:44:15 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
Regardless of how I initially stated my opinion,
No matter how many times you insist that what you were doing was "just stating an opinion", it will never change the fact that what you were actually doing was stating an unsupportable conclusion reached via faulty induction.
If others are willing to allow you to cloak fallacious logic in the veil of opinion, and you are willing to do so, well, that is your problem.
Neither you, nor anyone else, will ever get a free pass on this from me.
This is such a basic tenet of rational conversation, akin to agreeing on definitions of terms before a debate, that I still remain shocked that you are doing it. Even more so that others here are allowing it to pass unchallenged.
quote:
Why am I required to agree with you on anything
If we do not agree on the basic rules of logic, and other basic requirements for rational discourse, then what is the point of ever posting anything? None.
I did not create the concept of opinion, nor the concept of objective conclusions. I can, however, distinguish between the two. There is an objective method you too can use to gain the skill. It is very simple. Conclusions stated with non-subjective modifiers are not opinions.
(spelling/format edit) |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 03/24/2007 21:27:15 |
 |
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2007 : 15:51:55 [Permalink]
|
Wait!! . . . I can't use sarcasm?!? . . . but . . . but . . .
ejd
|
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/24/2007 : 16:48:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ejdalise
Wait!! . . . I can't use sarcasm?!? . . . but . . . but . . .
ejd
What? No sarcasm?
Then write a nasty haiku.
It works every time! 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2007 : 22:17:18 [Permalink]
|
Okay, beskeptigal, in the spirit of the topic of this thread I'll try to be mostly civil and diplomatic with my response, but it's becoming difficult because you continue to misrepresent my comments and distort my position. That's a Bill scott or Michael Mozina stunt, quite beneath your usual style. I have no idea why you're doing it, but it's frustrating, and it's getting old.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal...
GeeMack, is it completely out of the question that given some people took the guy's posts as hostile, but others didn't, it isn't so clear?
No, of course it's not out of the question. Is it out of the question that maybe you've taken some people's comments as being hostile, or more hostile than they intended, when apparently there were others who didn't? Pot, kettle, and all that.
quote:
And if he was not intending to just piss everyone off, if he might have been mistaken but sincere about his perception the board is full of atheist proselytizers, wouldn't a normal response be to set the record straight first before just jumping on the guy?
I did set the record straight. The guy made a blatantly false statement and I told him it was. You can't get any straighter than that. And so what if he was "mistaken but sincere"? Does sincerity add a few points of truth value to an otherwise totally untrue comment? Of course not.
But let's dig a little deeper, shall we? The guy didn't say this board is full of atheist proselytizers. He said most of the people on the religion board are dedicated to proving that God does not exist. He was reminded that his comment contained no truth, and he had every opportunity to elaborate, but he didn't. Until and unless he does, I'm willing to accept that he intended his comment at face value. You, beskeptigal, seem to want to translate it into something other than what he actually said.
And my replies had almost nothing to do with his possible intent to piss anyone off, or not. At one point I questioned whether he was being satirical or possibly trolling, because he made a comment which was so ridiculous it didn't look like he was being serious. He replied that he wasn't trolling, and didn't seem to be particularly offended that I asked.
quote:
And how would you suggest I deal with this issue? Use generalities? Quotes with no links? Make sure I found some example from everyone? Do you really think I am so concerned about your particular posts that I wrote all this just for you but felt like disguising it so you wouldn't know? Like I'm one who doesn't speak my mind? That's far fetched.
I already said, and very clearly I thought, that I only consider the parts of your rant where you've quoted my posts to be about my posts. So no, I don't think you've got it in for me and you're hiding your intent behind your other messages. Oddly enough this seems to be another example of you being rude and condescending, right here in this thread where you're more or less preaching against that sort of behavior.
So how do I think you should deal with this? For one thing you might ease up a little on the self righteousness. It's out of character for you. And you seem unwilling to actually read the relevant posts and understand the replies you're receiving. You might work on that. Maybe stop assuming posts mean what you want them to mean instead of meaning what the people actually said. Maybe try to understand that not everyone will make their comments all flowery and sweet to accommodate your notion of proper interaction. Everyone has unique ways of expressing themselves, so now that you've made your feelings known, you might consider dealing with this by being more tolerant of those differences.
|
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 00:43:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by ejdalise
Wait!! . . . I can't use sarcasm?!? . . . but . . . but . . .
ejd
What? No sarcasm?
Then write a nasty haiku.
It works every time!
My talents, meager as they are, do not lend themselves to haiku. No, I'll have to find some other way through the murckyness of the sarcasmless world. Perhaps I could acquire some dry wit, or master the art of the humorous barb.
Ah, I'm just deluding myself!! . . . I'm doomed, I tell you; doomed!!
ejd
|
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 01:00:19 [Permalink]
|
GeeMack, if it was only I who took some of the posts as hostile how do you account for Indeterminancy's own words, "called me names, said I was stupid, ridiculous and ignorant"? And you describe this as me "assuming posts mean what [I] want them to mean instead of meaning what the people actually said". It wasn't a mean post, GeeMack, it just wasn't flowery? Is that is your position?
And as far as "misrepresenting your comments" which according to you is a "stunt", just as the above claim, the reader gets the blame as if the person posting it couldn't possibly have been less than clear, ergo it must have been a willful ploy.
I did not pull any 'stunts'. I didn't make assumptions about your post, I pointed out specifically what was unnecessary hostility in them. You don't have to agree. Your explanation should be to Indeterminancy, not to me.
As far as being "self righteous", and "rude and condescending", I don't deserve that comment anymore than I deserved all the other sh!++y things I've been called on this forum. There is no reason for your hostility. There is no reason Dude can't get over his nonsense. There was no reason for Mycroft to say all the crap he did and it was disgusting Dave defended him.
Well I have a suggestion though I don't know if it is possible with this forum format. Give me an ignore option. Until then let me just inform you all now. Any of you who wish to, are welcome to not read anything I post. In fact, if you think I am a liar, dishonest, a paranoid hysterical radical biased prejudiced left wing extremist, (Mycroft's words which Dave defended) or pull stunts misinterpreting what you so clearly articulated than I ask you to stop reading my posts. I will not be reading the posts of those of you who have declared I am those things. Why would anyone bother with people who said such things about them?
That should fix the problem for me anyway. Sadly it won't help any other new members who are met with the same hostility for not having the views and critical thinking skills which meet everyone's standards here.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 08:33:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal...
GeeMack, if it was only I who took some of the posts as hostile how do you account for Indeterminancy's own words, "called me names, said I was stupid, ridiculous and ignorant"?
First, I didn't say, or even suggest you were the only one who took some of the posts as being hostile. So by inference you're misrepresenting my comments again, Bill scott, uh, I mean, beskeptigal. Knock it off, will ya?
But... I don't recall anyone calling Indeterminancy names, so maybe he was pulling that out of his ass? Maybe he reads things into people's comments, things which aren't actually there? Seems to be a bit of that going around lately, hmm?
And as to his claim that he was called stupid, I'd account for that by considering maybe he was lying. Maybe he has some reading comprehension disability. Maybe he's mentally ill and believes he's been called stupid when in fact he hasn't. It's hard to tell, but one thing is absolutely certain, nobody called him stupid.
Nobody called him ridiculous either, not that I recall. I said one of his comments was ridiculous, because it was. There is a significant difference between saying someone is ridiculous and claiming something they said is ridiculous. Not noticing that difference, or not understanding that difference, lends some support to the notion that he has a bit of a reading comprehension problem, among many other possibilities.
I said something about him being willfully ignorant if he actually thought the Revolutionary War and the events depicted in the Bible are equally well supported by evidence. Notice how I said, "If you're actually being serious, your request demonstrates an obvious willful ignorance." The word "if" makes that a conditional statement. I didn't call him ignorant.
So let's see, how do I account for Indeterminancy's own words, "called me names, said I was stupid, ridiculous and ignorant"? Part of it (arguably all of it) was completely false, and the rest was apparently his misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of what was actually said. That's how. Maybe he was ready to bail out at that point anyway and decided to put on the persecuted Christian act as his parting shot.
You see, there are many ways to account for his making that particular false statement. There is a legitimate possibility that he simply lied, or pulled it out of his ass, or saw those words in a hallucination, or needs a remedial reading course, or was using the old persecuted Christian sympathy ploy, among others. And you may be right, beskeptigal. Maybe he said it because he felt besieged by hostility. But for you to assume that, given the great number of possibilities, would be just as wrong as assuming he said it for any other particular reason.
quote:
And you describe this as me "assuming posts mean what [I] want them to mean instead of meaning what the people actually said". It wasn't a mean post, GeeMack, it just wasn't flowery? Is that is your position?
Indeterminancy made a blatantly false statement. I told him so. Indeterminancy made a ridiculous comparison. I told him so. I have no reason to believe Indeterminancy didn't mean exactly what he said in his posts. You seem to assume we both meant things other than what we said.
quote:
And as far as "misrepresenting your comments" which according to you is a "stunt", just as the above claim, the reader gets the blame as if the person posting it couldn't possibly have been less than clear, ergo it must have been a willful ploy.
If you don't understand something I've said, ask. But yes, you do get the blame when I've explained myself clearly and you ignore me to continue to claim that I actually meant something else. That's misrepresenting my comments, and it's just as dishonest when you do it as it is when Bill scott or Michael Mozina do it.
quote:
I did not pull any 'stunts'. I didn't make assumptions about your post, I pointed out specifically what was unnecessary hostility in them. You don't have to agree. Your explanation should be to Indeterminancy, not to me.
You made at least one assumption about my posts, an incorrect one at that. You assumed I was being hostile when in fact I was being forthright and succinct. Apparently not everyone agrees with your subjective opinion on what is and isn't hostile. Everyone has a different style of communicating. It would probably be helpful for everyone to become more aware of and more tolerant of that.
And no, I don't think I need to explain anything to Indeterminancy unless he asks for an explanation. Unless you've actually discussed the matter with him, and he's told you that he thinks I owe him an explanation, then it seems you're being awfully self righteous in claiming that I should.
quote:
As far as being "self righteous", and "rude and condescending", I don't deserve that comment anymore than I deserved all the other sh!++y things I've been called on this forum. There is no reason for your hostility.
If Indeterminancy says something which is blatantly false or ridiculous, someone, maybe even I, will likely tell him that he has done that. If you're acting self righteous or make a comment which seems rude and condescending, someone, maybe even I, will often be just undiplomatic enough to say so in so many words. Goes with the territory.
We're going to get involved in lively, sometimes heated discussions here at SFN. You surely know that by now, beskeptigal. Your equating terse, succinct, or forthright comments, a brazen, cocky, or undiplomatic attitude, or even just plain unrefined social skills, with hostility seems an unreasonable assumption.
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 03/25/2007 08:46:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 08:58:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
...a paranoid hysterical radical biased prejudiced left wing extremist, (Mycroft's words which Dave defended)...
Since I'm on your ignore list, I suppose trying to correct the record here is pointless. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 09:32:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Forum members, I love you all. That's the good news. Now for the bad…
I need to bring up to the forum something that has been bothering me. The level of hostility on our boards seems to be on the rise. Either that or I am becoming more sensitive to some of what I would now consider unnecessarily harsh attacks on individuals, which I doubt.
. . . it's nice to be loved . . . <deep sigh>
The thing is you may be misreading what's happening. I may be naively optimistic, but I think most of what is perceived as lack of civility may, in fact, the result of the supression of intense physical and intellectual yearning between people manifesting itself as frustration for their inability to act on their feelings for each other. Honest . . . I think I heard it on Dr. Phil, or something.
See, it goes like this . . . over time and repeated contact, people are naturally drawn to each other, gaining greater respect and admiration for the other's persona. The fact they can't meet in person becomes a frustration that can only be assuaged by continued, and more frequent, verbal and written communication. Of course, it would be sappy to continually write each other little love notes, so the only other option is to fabricate conflict, allowing for the development of more frequent, increasingly personal conversations. Essentially, the people use these so called "arguments" as a substitute for their real feelings of love and admiration.
It's manifested by spending an inordiante amount of time both monitoring, and responding, to each other's communications. They begin to live in their own manufactured cacoon of coded messages. These messages start with veiled, but easily discerned, admiration, and of course, they end with the "set up", the loving jab that will elicit a response and continued communication.
You asking for civility is the same as someone saying "Will you two please get a room?!". Embarassed by being found out, sometimes they'll lash out at you, and other times break off in a huff.
I would not worry too much about it. These things will run their course. Soon they will each find other people that seem more interesting and attractive, and they'll start the cycle all over again with new, and seemingly more exciting, partners.
It's love. What can you do?
ejd
p.s. not interested in any "relationship" right now. |
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 10:04:48 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
There is no reason Dude can't get over his nonsense.
There is no reason you can't abide by the same standards of logic and evidence that you expect others to abide by. Yet, for whatever reason, you think you can get a free pass when it comes to your politics and your incessant bashing of anyone not the same stripe as you.
There is no reason you should think you can cloak your fallacious conclusion as "opinion", and get away with it, but you do think it. I believe you honestly don't comprehend the difference between what you are doing and what an actual opinion is.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 10:57:46 [Permalink]
|
Though not written with this forum in mind, it's worth a read. Especially if you are one of the people here trying to simply justify his or her own position without trying to understand another person's position.
by, Guy Burgess, Ph.D. and Heidi Burgess, Ph.D.
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/civility.htm
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 11:59:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by me
Since I'm on your ignore list, I suppose trying to correct the record here is pointless.
After more thought, I apologize for posting the above. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 12:04:01 [Permalink]
|
McQ said:
quote:
Though not written with this forum in mind, it's worth a read.
Good reading, and I can find nothing in there I disagree with.
The only problem with it is that it assumes all parties are rational and agree to the same standards of evidence and logic. At that point there is a large ammount of room for civil debate about issues, and they are on the money with every point they make in their article.
Here, in this forum, we are experiencing a more fundamental problem. Some people here refuse to even acknowledge that there is an objective method to disinguish between statements of opinion and statements of fact. If people are unwilling to take that step, then there is no way to get them to apply it, especially to their own statements.
If the parties involved cannot agree on definition of terms, standards of evidence, and rules of logic... then meaningful and civil discourse isn't likely to occur.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 03/25/2007 12:05:14 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 13:27:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Though not written with this forum in mind, it's worth a read. Especially if you are one of the people here trying to simply justify his or her own position without trying to understand another person's position.
by, Guy Burgess, Ph.D. and Heidi Burgess, Ph.D.
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/civility.htm
An excellent and very appropriate link. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A little more civility, please…
