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!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: JacquesCousteau]
    #2831778 -

I never said anything about Waco.

Maybe is it time then. There are many unresolved issues around this incident. I think your viewpoint could be enlightening. :smile:


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: 2Experimental]
    #2832013 -

swami has pazazz


--------------------
What fun is it in Nirvana while other beings are suffering?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Swami]
    #2832073 -

Waco was an actual incident of religious opression in the U.S. of A.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Swami]
    #2832553 -

I think the reason people get angry at you Swami, isnt so much what you do, but how you do it.

Ive learnt through interacting with vast numbers of people in my life, that generally speaking it is not what you say to someone, but how you say it, that plays the greatest role in eliciting an emotional response from that person.

In your case Swami It is not that you may prove peoples beliefs or reasoning to be logically inconsistent, but rather, the manner in which you do it that causes people to respond negatively towards you on many occasions. In addition to this, you seem to take great pleasure in causing people to feel this way.


Jono.


--------------------
Our problem results from acting like cowboys on a limitless frontier when in truth we inhabit a living spaceship with a finely balanced life-support system." David C. Korton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Swami]
    #2832770 -

"The problem is that you think that the fact that you put up 20k    against anyone who can prove their 'meta-physical abilities' has anything to do with the way you conduct yourself on these boards."

'The problem is: You called me disingenuous...  I am v-e-r-y straightforward; and I certainly don't pretend ignorance.  Which of us has a better grasp of the English language?  I will wager- nah, forget it.'

Two things about that, Swamster.  First, Jacques never actually said the word 'disingenuous', so why use the definition of that word to illustrate how straightforward you are and dispose of his implication that you have a hidden agenda?  You probably do have some mesure of an agenda, be it blatent or subtle or subconcious, even.

And the other thing, it'd say you do, on occaison, fit the description of disingenuous under the second given meaning in the definition you provided.  Surely, you won't claim that you've never been faux-na?f?  Not in a malicious way, but you enjoy being the center of attention (hence the self-aggrandizing behavior) and by being very vague and then pretending to be unaware of the anwsers to the questions being asked of you, you made a couple people keep poking at you until eventually you reveal the full depth of the lesson that you'd known the entire time.  Don't get me wrong it's a great way to impart information and ideas (teach), but you are what you are.  All things considered, though, I'd say the world needs a little disingenuity every once in a while.  Maybe it's a good thing you decided to skip the wagering this time, eh?

But honestly, the main reason I get angry at the Swameroonie is the manner in which he just ignores or dodges inconvenient questions.  You oughta be a professional politician, Swami.  You're a natural, you've got all the tricks of the trade down pat already!  :smirk: :smirk:


--------------------
Don't worry, I'm wrong.

Edited by Panoramix (06/27/04 07:50 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Panoramix]
    #2832792 -

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've been trying to say.

Watch out though, he'll probably dodge most of your post, too. :P

*scampers off into the blue yonder from whence he came*

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: jono]
    #2833121 -

the manner in which you do it that causes people to respond negatively towards you on many occasions

This is an enormous fallacy and if you learn nothing else from me, learn this:
People choose how they react. If they do not choose, then they are automotons sleep-walking and need to be woken up.

If I pour water on 50 people ALL of them will get wet. Then I (and the water) am the cause of their wetness.

If I make a statement and 50 people read it, and of those 50, 5 people think it was right-on, 40 people were neutral, and 5 people were pissed; how am I CAUSING any sort of reaction?

Please think deeply on this BEFORE responding.


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Panoramix]
    #2833135 -

Hmm...At the risk of being labeled a member of the darkside, I feel compelled to stick up for this dork (even though we all know he can hold his own).

Two things about [disingenuous], Swamster. First, Jacques never actually said the word 'disingenuous', so why use the definition of that word to illustrate how straightforward you are and dispose of his implication that you have a hidden agenda? You probably do have some mesure of an agenda, be it blatent or subtle or subconcious, even.

I think it's safer to assume that his "agenda" is not much different from any other frequenter of S&P. To claim his agenda is hidden would mean he is being described as disingenuous. You said it yourself, Panoramix, there was "implication" from Jacques' post. Implication is usually vague and not straight forward. As far as I can remember, Swami rarely makes vague posts. In fact, I'm confident he purposely tries to avoid that (unlike several other posters).

then pretending to be unaware of the anwsers to the questions being asked of you, you made a couple people keep poking at you until eventually you reveal the full depth of the lesson that you'd known the entire time.

Um...this is a bold statement because it cannot be proven.

Beliefs are very personal ideas, so when they are challenged, it feels like a personal attack. There aren't many insults thrown about this board, but it is a place for discussion. If anyone is affraid that their beliefs would be challenged, then it's probably safer to keep 'em to yourself. Ignorance is sometimes bliss.

Why people get mad at Swami


--------------------
"...yet another in a long series of diversions an attempt to avoid responsibility."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Viaggio]
    #2833157 -

So, there's still no word on the proposed Koombayah Forum?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Swami]
    #2833196 -

Swami said:
People choose how they react. If they do not choose, then they are automotons sleep-walking and need to be woken up.


I think this is a very important point, and that people should not only be conscious of this here on the boards, but in any and all kinds of everyday life situations. In a way, it can even be looked at as excercise for your own "free will".


--------------------
Pot cures cancer.  Tell your friends.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: ekomstop]
    #2833238 -

Common wisdom says it is dangerous to wake someone in the middle of a dream.

Is that true in this case?

What normally happens when you force the development of an organism?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Swami]
    #2833465 -

Swami I understand what you're saying, but at the same time do you do this to your self and your own ideas just as aggressively?


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Strumpling]
    #2833751 -

The aggressive grilling must come first before the adopting of an idea and be constantly re-evaluated when new data comes in.

Most folks adopt an idea first, then attempt to make the data fit it.

Hre is the problem: once people have already invested in an idea, they will cling to it almost no matter what evidence says to the contrary.


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Swami]
    #2833832 -

Yup. I think it's beneficial to always keep in perspective the subjectivity of one's own beliefs.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Viaggio]
    #2833916 -

I can recall of a few instances when Swami made a vague or partially-developped initial posting on one of the countless threads he's started.  It was, of course, only so as to make it so that he could reveal the point he was trying to make incrementally, which is good.  If you just offer hints to try to guide the conversation somewhat you can allow people to discover the point you were making by themselves.  Then you don't need to try to convince them, as they'll do that themselves.  As for when Swami's done this, well, it's all a matter of public record.  I'm not about to go searching through the old threads to find an example right now, being as a just got off work and that sounds like it would require effort.  But even so, I'll stand by my umm, bold statement.  And maybe I'll even dig up an example of an occaison or two where Swami clearly demonstrated the behaviors I'm talking about at some point in the future. 

Just out of curiosity, why did you put a link to this thread on your post?  We're already on this thread if we're reading your post.  :confused: :wtf: :confused:


--------------------
Don't worry, I'm wrong.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Panoramix]
    #2833931 -

People get pissed when they get told thir bullshit is just that. This forum NEEDS it bad. So I think it is a public service. Never seen so many shallow stoners in one place before.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #2834439 -

People tend to have a hard time applying their realizations internally, rather than externally.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Swami]
    #2835120 -

Swami said:
the manner in which you do it that causes people to respond negatively towards you on many occasions

This is an enormous fallacy and if you learn nothing else from me, learn this:
People choose how they react. If they do not choose, then they are automotons sleep-walking and need to be woken up.

If I pour water on 50 people ALL of them will get wet. Then I (and the water) am the cause of their wetness.

If I make a statement and 50 people read it, and of those 50, 5 people think it was right-on, 40 people were neutral, and 5 people were pissed; how am I CAUSING any sort of reaction?

Please think deeply on this BEFORE responding.



Swami, It would take too much of my time to answer all the problems that your answer raises here, so i will only respond in brief. I was referring not to when you make posts about a subject in general, but when you select the response of a particular person in a thread and decide to 'puruse' for want of a better word, that persons belief or argument.

Without getting into the problem of free-will, and causation I will ask this of you.

If I said to you 'fuck off you twit!' in an angry, and agreesive tone, it is overall more likely that a stronger and more 'negative' emotional response would arise in you, than if for example i said 'fuck off you twit' in a joking, and good humoured manner. Infact, one could go as far to say that the emotional result of my statement would be completely different in the person recieving it, depending on how I phrased or toned it.

So when you prove someones arguing to be illogical or inconsistent, you could do it in a manner that the person would not aggravate others so much. But as I said earlier, It appears that you enjoy having an effect on other people.

Take what is above in quotations for example, 'Think deeply BEFORE responding' if that isnt a loaded statement, with the obvious intent of causing a response in me, then I dont know what is! It presumes a lot of things, that for example, there is sufficient evidence in my post to suggest that I havent thought deeply, that on the other hand, you have thought 'more deeply' than I to grant you the authority to make that statement. The fact that it was also framed without any of the social conventions of manners, and the BEFORE in capitals, further emphasises my original point.


Jono.


--------------------
Our problem results from acting like cowboys on a limitless frontier when in truth we inhabit a living spaceship with a finely balanced life-support system." David C. Korton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: jono]
    #2835126 -

Controversy is much better reading, and more thought provoking than all of us agreeing all of the time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why people get angry at the Swam [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #2835475 -

Huehuecoyotl said:
Controversy is much better reading, and more thought provoking than all of us agreeing all of the time.


In other news, it is entirely possible to carry on meaningful debate, real idea exchange between perspectives, without having to revert to shocking and provoking to gain attention. Controversy only side-tracks the debate, as it brings focus towards the controversy itself, instead of the actual, pure ideas. Just because there is no controversy in a discussion doesn't in any way mean that "everyone is agreeing all the time"  :rolleyes:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]

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

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* when am i gonna see an angry post here?
( 1 2 all )		 felixhigh 3,618 34 10/19/03 03:16 PM
by Shroomism
* Angry on the Inside
( 1 2 all )		 PDU 1,682 34 01/11/04 04:52 AM
by skoomaguitarist
* can love be angry?
( 1 2 all )		 JCoke 3,011 31 12/07/04 08:41 PM
by Fucknuckle
* Getting Angry
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 2,229 27 08/23/04 10:16 PM
by gettinjiggywithit
* You act so superior that it makes me angry!
( 1 2 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 1,645 28 11/30/07 11:36 AM
by Middleman
* Angry Shroomerites Are Becoming Less and Less World Spirit 1,041 6 09/06/02 07:45 AM
by cybermob
* What is intelligence? psyka 994 9 12/12/05 10:19 AM
by Gomp
* Strongest drug CerebralFlower 498 2 04/22/07 12:16 AM
by AlteredAgain

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
6,575 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 37 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 0.029 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 18 queries.