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

PlanetSpores.ca
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 |  [ show all ]
The non-argumentative, agreement thread * 1
    #14183512 -

This is an experiment to test out certain claims by several posters on the nature of conflict and debate. In this thread you may ONLY agree with the stated premise. Whether you actually agree or not is irrelevant.

Premise: OC is the best Shroomery member ever and an awesome human being.

Discuss.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14183526 -

yesss...

he certainly is a *cough*... 'human being'

:strokebeard2:


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: quinn]
    #14183552 -

:lol: I mean: No Sarcasm! :nonono:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14183646 -

oc + no sarcasm
=:header:


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: quinn]
    #14184199 -

:brilliant:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: R2-D2]
    #14185416 -

Yes this is correct according to the OP.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14185451 -

This is pretty much what the rules are in the magic mystery forum.

Not actually written into the rules, but based on the statements made repeatedly over time: apparently:

a) no disagreement unless the person taking the position overtly declares disagreement acceptable.
b) even when disagreement is declared overtly acceptable, you may still not disagree (its unclear what this is a function of)
c) therefore:  the first person to take a given position wins, and all following posters must either praise such position or remain completely neutral as to its validity or preferability.


This kind of "first person to take a position wins" style discussion is about the stupidest thing I could imagine.  Any thread starter may have his thread destroyed by someone winning the "land rush" and taking a contrary position necesary to his thesis.  Similarly, once someone states something, perhaps in the original thread, the thread by rule must be followed by nothing but agreement as to that position.  IF someone should argue the consequences of your position, you may not disagree with him, i.e.:

"Hey, I like apple juice"

"Wow, I do too!  You know, those who like apple juice by definition like Hitler and want to commit revolutionary genocide.  That's not very cool, Original Poster"

"Uh... No, I don't favor genocide"  (Bannable offense)



This "argumentative" criticism people raise ever so often seems to be a semantic argument.  The word argument holds general connotations of contrariness and disagreement, they don't like this and so rather than discussing why debate is improper, rely upon semantic connotations in what is essentially an appeal to consequence relying upon shitty semantic points.


Has anyone, ever, backed up their criticism of argument?  I would guess not, as that would make them argumentative and how could they justify their position but through argument?  Wonderful theory, really :kaboom:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: johnm214]
    #14185491 -

I am orange juice.

Obey me.

Follow, disregard.

Follow, disagree, follow.

Think... Keep thinking

Are you really

As fast, as you think I aint?

Do you really belive in anything?

Can you feel my depths............


--------------------
EVERYTHING IS DRUGS

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: johnm214]
    #14185860 -

johnm214 said:
c) therefore:  the first person to take a given position wins



what, they're giving out prizes? I'm in the wrong forum...


You can look for what is correct with a statement and you can look for what's incorrect with a statement simultaneously. Its not an either/or dichotomy.

If your goal is to 'win', then the easiest way to do that is to look for what's incorrect about a statement, even if that has little to do with the correctness of the main argument. I see this going on all the time in this forum, and IMO it decreases the value of the conversation because it gets dragged into some tit for tat debate about a tangential fact.

Edited by Freedom (03/26/11 08:47 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Freedom]
    #14185868 -

You said 'tit'. :blush:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Freedom]
    #14185928 -

Freedom said:
johnm214 said:
c) therefore:  the first person to take a given position wins



what, they're giving out prizes? I'm in the wrong forum...


You can look for what is correct with a statement and you can look for what's incorrect with a statement simultaneously. Its not an either/or dichotomy.

If your goal is to 'win', then the easiest way to do that is to look for what's incorrect about a statement, even if that has little to do with the correctness of the main argument. I see this going on all the time in this forum, and IMO it decreases the value of the conversation because it gets dragged into some tit for tat debate about a tangential fact.



Could you explain how something could be incorrect yet the argument premised upon it or somehow related to it not be incorrect?

It seems to me that the only way this could occur would be if the argument was extraenous, which would clearly not lead anyone to conclude it was challenged by the criticism, so nobody should feel like someone "won" or is being challenged- as you seem to find some fault with this.

On the other hand, if it is supportive of the argument, then it is either duplicative or integral, and in either case it is relevant as the proffered grounds for the conclusion would thereby be indicated to be incorrect, at least in part.  This limits the applicability of the conclusion in some or all cases.

For these reasons, I don't understand your claim: could you explain this?

It seems like you might be advancing a thought similar to those who've said people should presume what someone "really meant" and reply to this rather than what they said.  For reasons discussed previously, I find this silly and somewhat insulting/presumptuous if it were to be applied to an argument of mine.

What is the evidence of this intent to "win" and how do you diagnose such?  What is the problem with having this motivation?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14186589 -

If he looks anything like the picture in his signature he's my favorite person on the shroomery and the planet!


--------------------
"Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose
"Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS
"When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi
"Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson.
"Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: SlashOZ]
    #14187260 -

Freedom said:
If your goal is to 'win', then the easiest way to do that is to look for what's incorrect about a statement, even if that has little to do with the correctness of the main argument. I see this going on all the time in this forum, and IMO it decreases the value of the conversation because it gets dragged into some tit for tat debate about a tangential fact.


Agreed.  Sure, it's great if you can point out a flaw, but I'd like to see posters discuss the general idea presented and offer constructive criticism in addition to focusing on small, tangential errors within someone's post.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: deCypher]
    #14188037 -

deCypher said:
Freedom said:
If your goal is to 'win', then the easiest way to do that is to look for what's incorrect about a statement, even if that has little to do with the correctness of the main argument. I see this going on all the time in this forum, and IMO it decreases the value of the conversation because it gets dragged into some tit for tat debate about a tangential fact.


Agreed.  Sure, it's great if you can point out a flaw, but I'd like to see posters discuss the general idea presented and offer constructive criticism in addition to focusing on small, tangential errors within someone's post.


hrmmm Well unless the minor details are the crux of the issue then it's best to avoid getting bogged down in them... I mean everyone is going to mislabel something, or use incorrect grammar and spelling, use incorrect terminology. But to discredit someone's entire argument because of those things seems pointless.

I think we stand far more to gain by attempting to help someone explain their argument instead of just trying to bash them... we can learn how that other person thinks and even if they are wrong about a specific point they may have a very interesting way of looking at the world.

I think the problem in a lot of people's lives is that they want to be right, and they ACTUALLY think they are right. Perhaps the best measure of how 'right' you are is to look at how successful your life is. The OP obviously has a successful, and fruitful life and that is why he is telling us that he is "an awesome human being". I feel happy for him!!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: durantz]
    #14188065 -

Quote:
a) no disagreement unless the person taking the position overtly declares disagreement acceptable.
b) even when disagreement is declared overtly acceptable, you may still not disagree (its unclear what this is a function of)
c) therefore:  the first person to take a given position wins, and all following posters must either praise such position or remain completely neutral as to its validity or preferability.



Not so, I have disagreed with many points and given clear reasons with no problem from mods many times over there. I think it may have used to be like this but it's not the case any more. They just don't want people constantly hounding viewpoints that are expressed as opinions is all.


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Grapefruit]
    #14188115 -

Grapefruit said:
Quote:
a) no disagreement unless the person taking the position overtly declares disagreement acceptable.
b) even when disagreement is declared overtly acceptable, you may still not disagree (its unclear what this is a function of)
c) therefore:  the first person to take a given position wins, and all following posters must either praise such position or remain completely neutral as to its validity or preferability.



Not so, I have disagreed with many points and given clear reasons with no problem from mods many times over there. I think it may have used to be like this but it's not the case any more. They just don't want people constantly hounding viewpoints that are expressed as opinions is all.


Yeah, I am admitadly basing my statements of past events that may no longer be applicable in practice.  I was never warned or banned (I don't even think unofficially) and I disagreed with people, as I know many others have, but in the past there were statements to the effect of what I said- they didn't explictly endorse the "land-rush" of opinions rule, mind you, but it was stated that you couldn't disagree with people, which seems to inescapably lead to the idea that the first one taking a position wins the right to have a position on that issue and all others must agree or stand mute.

I don't know much about how things are going over there nowadays.  (in the past it honestly seemed like some members would get upset at people disagreeing with them because of past experiences with that person/ disliking their opinions on things, which always seemed kinda strange).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: johnm214]
    #14188121 -

Well what is stopping us from just stating our opinions (even if they differ) and leaving it at that?

It is rare on these forums for someone to actually say "oh wow thanks for making me see I'm wrong"

So perhaps we don't really gain anything by these trivial arguments we are having on here.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: johnm214]
    #14188122 -

I think one of the essential differences between here and the Mystery forum is that the former discredits personal experience of such phenomena as spirits, God, extraterrestrials, etcetera whereas the latter accepts these as givens.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: deCypher]
    #14188160 -

I disagree with y'all sumbitches. As the OP I have the power and the glory. And I like it. It's only rock n roll, but I like it.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: deCypher]
    #14188162 -

I don't think that's so.  I don't reject personal experiences of spirits and whatnot, personally.  I can't conclude people are lieing or hallucinating when they're wide awake and clear-headed, I just don't know why they saw what they saw.

The problem is usually these reports are conclusory statements rather than factual testimonials, and those are pretty pointless no matter how much you trust the person.  I generally don't think people are dishonest, but that doesn't mean them saying "I saw an alien" means anything, when that could mean "I woke up and went for a walk, saw a point-like blueish light of intensity intermediate between an average star and a jet's wing lights zigzag across the sky from middle of the sky to far horizon in about one and a half seconds"

If they said, rather: In the middle of the afternoon, an alien knocked on my door and took me for a trip to Thailand in his cruiser where we had tea and reutrned for dinner at my place- that would be a different story.

Generally the claims are just conclusory reports or very weak factual scenarios without any particular reason to endorse the opinions of the claimant.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ 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
* Experimental Thread!
( 1 2 all )		 ferago2 2,413 28 11/23/04 02:43 AM
by Diploid
* The *OFFICIAL* Co-Incidences Thread
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 nubious 5,806 61 07/29/03 01:07 PM
by Source
* A Sound Argument for Free Will shroomydan 2,989 17 10/11/04 08:21 PM
by deff
* Truth in the Ontological Argument or Syntax Games chemkid 1,354 13 12/25/03 10:21 AM
by Anonymous
* The Passion of the Christ (serious thread + lengthy) orion 794 8 02/29/04 10:16 AM
by quarry
* Can I convert an idealist? Reality thread!
( 1 2 all )		 Mixomatosis 3,464 35 12/27/03 08:34 PM
by Malachi
* Argument by Design Bullfrog1 1,672 10 12/09/07 07:38 PM
by Holly
* The Nothing thread
( 1 2 all )		 Jellric 1,957 38 08/25/04 10:39 AM
by Jellric

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,682 topic views. 0 members, 452 guests and 27 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 0.011 seconds on 18 queries.