Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Why is OC so negative?
    #11085970 -

Who gives a fuck why you perceive another poster one way or another?

If your ideas can't be examined without your whining then those ideas are worthless. The Truth does not need coddling and protection and exaggeration and the typcial knee-jerk reaction when looked at too closely.

If your idea makes sense then it can presented as such with SOME backing other than emotionalism. If it is merely a cool, drug-induced flight of fantasy then it deserves ridicule.

Get over it!


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #11086035 -

First he is against alcohol, and now against drug-induced flights of fancy!  What a buzzkill. :laugh:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: fivepointer]
    #11086039 -

Next up: the dangers of sex and rock n roll.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #11086045 -

I retract my statement from the other thread. :tongue:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: WScott]
    #11086057 -

Too late!


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: WScott]
    #11086075 -

I would not have gotten angry at you if you had maybe offered an alternate opinion. But you came on to my post and just said I was wrong. That my IDEA was wrong. You actually said that an Idea that I brought up for DISCUSSION was wrong.


--------------------
If anything typed above is about me participating in illegal activities it is either a joke or a lie. <img src="https://files.shroomery.org/smileys/w0ahhhhmahnnn.gif" alt=":w0ahhhhmahnnn:" title=":w0ahhhhmahnnn:"/>

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #11086092 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Who gives a fuck why you perceive another poster one way or another?

Who gives a fuck about anything others do? I'm not implying that we shouldn't give a fuck.
Quote:
If your ideas can't be examined without your whining then those ideas are worthless.

terrible logical error in making this conclusion.
Quote:
The Truth does not need coddling and protection and exaggeration and the typcial knee-jerk reaction when looked at too closely.

if "looking at closly" does not include coddling, protection, or exaggeration...what does it include?
Quote:
If your idea makes sense then it can presented as such with SOME backing other than emotionalism.

everything in your post is emotional
Quote:
If it is merely a cool, drug-induced flight of fantasy then it deserves ridicule.

Get over it!


do you have things to get over?

could you be needing to get over the fact of you telling others to "Get over it!"?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #11086093 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Who gives a fuck why you perceive another poster one way or another?

If your ideas can't be examined without your whining then those ideas are worthless. The Truth does not need coddling and protection and exaggeration and the typcial knee-jerk reaction when looked at too closely.

If your idea makes sense then it can presented as such with SOME backing other than emotionalism. If it is merely a cool, drug-induced flight of fantasy then it deserves ridicule.

Get over it!



One also doesn't have to mock or parody in order to deconstruct an idea. I get that the interactions on here are informal, but it still seems kind of lazy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: Sventington]
    #11086103 -

i think lazyness arises from dishonesty with oneself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: curious mouse]
    #11086105 -

Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If your ideas can't be examined without your whining then those ideas are worthless.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

terrible logical error in making this conclusion.


How dare you? :cryariver:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: Sventington]
    #11086115 -

Quote:
One also doesn't have to mock or parody in order to deconstruct an idea.


Please tell us the perfect way to deconstruct an idea so that no one ever gets offended and that we may all follow your example.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #11086228 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
One also doesn't have to mock or parody in order to deconstruct an idea.


Please tell us the perfect way to deconstruct an idea so that no one ever gets offended and that we may all follow your example.


I guess it depends on who you're addressing.

In the event you're addressing a large audience with something like a book, then you have time to go into detail about where an idea came, and all the things it is assuming, and how the claims the idea make seem problematic.

Not everyone has that much time though. If it's one on one interaction, I find it's pretty easy to reduce one's idea to "because I have faith it's true" by continuing to ask them why they hold "x" belief. You don't always get them to admit they're wrong, but it's a good start. Once you can get them to admit they base it on faith, you can stop the questions and make a statement on why you don't hold "x" belief. I find as long as this last part is done using emotionally loaded words, or trying to assume something is proven right or wrong before one gets to the end of what they're talking about, it usually makes for a productive back and forth.

This method takes more effort for sure, but I think in the end you'll get one to budge more than they will otherwise. After that they're left with food for thought.


I guess I understand your need to go about it quicker though, and instead of making something look wrong, making it look ridiculous. I think you mentioned something about having a friend or knowing someone who ended up in a cult (if I'm wrong about this then I have NO idea who I've mistaken you for), so I guess the whole process has an added level of meaning/urgency for you perhaps!

But anyhow I've seen you argue before without mocking or relying on parody, and your arguments were great. Your posts were definately longer in that instance though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: Sventington]
    #11086247 -

Then again, I think you've been into debunking for years. Are people really not receptive to having ideas calmly challenged? I generally don't actively seek to disprove things for people, so maybe your way is legit based on your experiences.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: Sventington]
    #11086288 -

IMO experience the method used has no bearing. There are two main reasons for this though both are interrelated:

1. As is constantly evidenced here, people generally do not perceive a gap between themselves and their ideas. Questioning an idea, whether gentle or brusque, is synonymous with a personal attack.

2. A person has spent their entire life and thought process (or lack thereof) to come to their current conclusion. They have too much time and energy invested even when clearly proven wrong.

Prime example: three cereologists (Crop Circle 'Experts') were shown a crop circle. All three declared it to be 'genuine' - meaning not man-made. When shown a complete video of the circle being made by a human crew, two of the three STILL FAILED TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS. How is this possible? Because they dedicated years to this nonsense and could not back out now no matter what.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #11086327 -

I guess I need to have less faith in people's abilities to be receptive. I guess I just worry that in the case of a lot of these back and forths (I'm generalizing, not speaking about this forum in particular), more people could be convinced if the way a message was being communicated is different. I guess that's because I think some put up an "I'm not listening!" wall as soon as someone says something overtly insulting. Then again as you said, people make the mistake of an idea being attacked being the same as them being attacked, so maybe few will listen in a circumstance where their worldview is being challenged anyhow.


That example you used is kind of shocking actually. I mean the crop circle people should know they're going to look MORE credible if they admit they're mistaken, instead of sticking to a story in a specific instance where it's proven they're 100% wrong. I don't get what one gains at that point by being stubborn, it can't even be emotionally satisfying.

Anyhow thanks for the response, carry on I suppose!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #11086350 -

When you work so hard with a theory and it gets proven wrong, you're ENTIRE existence feels worthless.


--------------------
"The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.." - Douglas Adams

ambargh's easy agar

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #11086352 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If your ideas can't be examined without your whining then those ideas are worthless.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

terrible logical error in making this conclusion.


How dare you? :cryariver:


here you are claiming some ideal...and you selfishly respond to this statement without addressing my questions....

Sapere aude  aka "dare to know"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: Sventington]
    #11086375 -

OC's debunking style is effective, and effectiveness has priority over cushioning your ego. If you these words on the screen really bother you that much, perhaps you simply shouldn't read them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: Tropism]
    #11086413 -

What truly cracks me up is the sheer number of people who would complain about my style and yet would not put me On Ignore. I think people like to rile themselves up over nothing.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is OC so negative? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #11086419 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
What truly cracks me up is the sheer number of people who would complain about my style and yet would not put me On Ignore. I think people like to rile themselves up over nothing.


i think you take joy and desire to rile people up....

what does this say about you?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Deconstruction of Buddhism. Icelander 1,623 6 12/01/05 04:07 PM
by Icelander
* examining beliefs
( 1 2 all )		 EternalCowabunga 2,302 21 12/24/10 08:30 AM
by 4896744
* Do we express or supress negative actions? Sinbad 844 6 02/26/05 04:17 PM
by Gomp
* Why fear having your ideas examined?
( 1 2 3 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 4,571 50 01/16/08 09:51 PM
by crumblebum
* You Can't Prove A Negative
( 1 2 3 all )		 DiploidM 2,827 47 10/12/04 04:54 PM
by Diploid
* clearing a room of negative energy
( 1 2 3 all )		 Soundform 4,475 44 03/06/08 09:10 PM
by Icelander
* yet another post , 2Experimental 602 12 09/16/04 06:35 PM
by Moonshoe
* SETI is worthless OrgoneConclusion 974 8 11/21/07 11:24 AM
by Ego Death

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,593 topic views. 0 members, 70 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.