Home | Community | Message Board

Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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!

PhytoExtractum Shop: Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Debate via video link
    #14180982 - 03/25/11 08:57 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

is almost always done when one has no logical point. The sole intention is to inundate another with a giant mish-mash of loosely correlated data and generally faulty conclusions with the undercurrent of "Debunk this, bitch!" As it is too time-consuming to refute 100 points at once, the poster may then smugly declare a 'win'.

This is beyond lazy and far, far from philosophical debate.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: Debate via video link [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14181031 - 03/25/11 09:11 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

From The Fallacies of Philosophical Debate sticky:

Argument By Question

Asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer, or no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand. Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded.

For example, "How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of randomness?" To answer this question requires either a long, boring explanation or a snappy explanation only if the audience is already versed in thermodynamics.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Debate via video link [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14181290 - 03/25/11 10:29 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

If the person cannot state a simple argument demonstrated valid by the video, then why would anyone think them intellectually capable of determining the validity of the video's argument in the first place?  They may be convinced, but that they cannot say why and insist you must watch the video makes it pretty unlikely that they are compotent to determine if there's a valid case presented or not.

I think its pretty clear that people get convinced by videos for emotional reasons- why else couldn't they state why they were convinced?  I imagine the video asserts some claim that is emotionally appealing to the person's needs, and they come to identify with that and through the age old process of confirmation bias, they validate through whatever convieniant means the video makes available to them those beleifs that are emotionally satisfying (often the mystical or conspiracy videos like "what the bleep do we know" simply declare conclusions to be true without demonstrating them so, that they are wrong is besides the point eve, why would anyone think a video declaring something true is any more helpful than a poster doing it?  How is this thought of as convincing?)  Later they can very much remember and remark on the idea so emotionally important to them, but they cannot justify the belief- likely because that wasn't of interest to them and their may or may not be justification to be had.


Another good one is "I'm not going to spoon feed you the information, your going to have to do some research", "you obviously don't understand this" (as if you couldn't disagree, but rather must be ignorant).  This one is just as strange.  When someone disagrees with you, why would you expect they would search out and research something they believe does not exist?  How would you even undertake such an endeavor?  Its no solace that generally the people who invoke this strange argument seem somewehat ignorant.  (read a pop-sci or crazy article and become convinced of their enlightment via the process mentioned before).

I'm actually somewhat curious:  it seems those that tell others to "research" or imply they are more intellient or knoweldgable are almost always not.  I mean, I never hear any of the knowledgable people on here using these arguments, yet how many times have I seen someone like diecommie politely disagree with someone's post in the science forum or here only to be told he doesn't know anything about physics and needs to start reading?

I wonder if there's an inverse relationship between a poster's knowledge and their claims that others are ignorant or need to read more and then they'd understand?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHippieChick8
seeker of justice
Female


Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 869
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Debate via video link [Re: johnm214]
    #14181384 - 03/25/11 10:50 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
I think its pretty clear that people get convinced by videos for emotional reasons- why else couldn't they state why they were convinced?  I imagine the video asserts some claim that is emotionally appealing to the person's needs, and they come to identify with that and through the age old process of confirmation bias, they validate through whatever convieniant means the video makes available to them those beleifs that are emotionally satisfying (often the mystical or conspiracy videos like "what the bleep do we know" simply declare conclusions to be true without demonstrating them so, that they are wrong is besides the point eve, why would anyone think a video declaring something true is any more helpful than a poster doing it?  How is this thought of as convincing?)  Later they can very much remember and remark on the idea so emotionally important to them, but they cannot justify the belief- likely because that wasn't of interest to them and their may or may not be justification to be had.





I've been seeing a lot of posts talking about "emotional attachment" and how it relates to the followers of the mystics and the gurus lately.  But yet, aren't the mystics and the gurus in their supposed state of bliss because they DON'T have an emotional attachment to anything?  I don't get it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Debate via video link [Re: HippieChick8]
    #14181401 - 03/25/11 10:55 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

in buddhism and stuff, I think that's the end game, but that doesn't mean those that claim such actually achieve any amount of it.

From my pespective it seems like the spiritual people are the ones with large egos and stuff.  They usually are the ones who insult me, switch the argument from the topic to myself, my motivations and infirmities, and so forth.  (see the evidence of immaterial thread- guruu switched the debate to me, my motivations, my failings, my arrogance, and all sorts of things despite me never saying anything about him personally...)

Who gets upset and starts calling people naems?  Generally the mystics.

That doesn't mean that has anything to do with mysticism though.  I figure its just immature people who want to believe that stuff for emotional reasons and get pissed off more often because its bullshit. (i.e. they switch the topic to you personally when they can't defend their position or comment on the merits).

Mabye its because I generally am on the opposing side, but it really seems to me that the mystical/spiritual people are WAY more insulting and personally vindictive, sensitive, ego driven than others.  I've often thought it was a strange dichotomy, and I don't think I'm the only one who's noticed this curious fact.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDisoRDeR
motional
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
Re: Debate via video link [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14181776 - 03/25/11 12:10 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 11 hours
Re: Debate via video link [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14184102 - 03/25/11 09:12 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

three weeks ago,
Quote:

SLAYER0429 said:
astronomical passion




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

PhytoExtractum Shop: Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Poor Debating Technique
( 1 2 all )
Swami 2,542 33 03/24/03 07:50 AM
by GazzBut
* A nice video...
( 1 2 all )
ChubbSubb 3,685 36 10/07/02 10:23 PM
by frogsheath
* Im Back!!! and still convinced free will is an illusion ;)
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
ZenGecko 16,138 148 04/22/07 10:22 PM
by PhanTomCat
* Philosophy Links
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 6,382 36 05/25/04 09:26 AM
by Deviant
* A debate on the subject of the morality of drug use. neuro 1,873 7 02/21/03 05:10 AM
by Sclorch
* Truth in the Ontological Argument or Syntax Games chemkid 1,324 13 12/25/03 10:21 AM
by Anonymous
* Argumentation thePatient 907 8 09/23/02 09:12 PM
by chodamunky
* Video:UFO's making crop circles Anonymous 989 9 01/23/03 07:17 PM
by TeKHeAD009

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
570 topic views. 1 members, 7 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.