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.

Feedback and Administration > Website Announcements and Feature Feedback
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!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Re: splitting S&P [Re: Fucknuckle]
    #3510939 -

Fucknuckle, I didn't mean the word "pussies" I agree it is a little harsh.

How about..

"Spirituality................(for fancy lads)"


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: ]
    #3511118 -

Splitting the forums because we'd rather not adjust to diversity is just plain laziness.

Splitting S&P would be a step toward turning Shroomery.org into:



The stripes can represent the original forums, and all the stars can represent the enormous divisiveness that happens when an entire population is too lazy to bother getting past their differences and learn to coexist peacefully.

Ohhh.. I'm in trouble now.


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


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: Ped]
    #3511191 -

I think i have a solution...

how about a seperate forum for people who just want to argue endlessly, flame each other incessantly, and post scat pics...

we could call it OTD :laugh:


--------------------
We got Nothing!
we're no longer selling jars.  :laugh:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: Ped]
    #3511218 -

I agree. When you put things in perspective, there is no innate conflict between the two.
Those who are polarized into believer/skeptic camps can benefit from each other's viewpoints.
The mods can utilize the tools they already have available to keep the peace.


--------------------
I am what Willis was talkin' bout.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: ]
    #3511223 -

How about we do this:
Poitics and Religion
Spirituality and Science
Philosophy and Technology

:laugh:


Edit: Got 'em mixed for a sec.


--------------------
Jerry Garcia. JERRY GARCIA! JERRY GARCIA!!!!

Edited by GnuBobo (12/16/04 09:22 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: GnuBobo]
    #3511237 -

What's the difference between philosophy posts and spirituality posts really? In the context of how the forum is used I think it'd be useless to split them.

"Oh, this post doesn't belong in the philosophy forum, move it to the spirituality forum."

Perhaps make it Philosophy and Science, and Computers and Technology? Spirituality and Philosophy is a bit redundant, unless spirituality isn't debated while philosophy is or some silly distinction someone wants to make


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: Ravus]
    #3511577 -

The primary difference between philosophy and theology is that the first relies solely on human reason to discover truths, and the latter relies on divine revelation. If those who do not believe in divine revelation could simply abstain from posting in threads dealing with such matters then the problem would be solved. There are different frames of reference for different discussions; no one is served when a nonbeliever bombs a thread about Bible study with his "logic", and no one is served when a fundamentalist bombs a thread about evolution because the Bible says it didn't happen that way.

The primary problem I see on both sides of this little drama is that there are a vocal handful of people who are more concerned with proving themselves right than with learning something. I've said this before but it's worth repeating; Humility is required for the apprehension of wisdom. Most of the people on this board are less than thirty years old, do you really think you have it all figured out already?

I happened to be trained in philosophy but I don't post in S&P very often because of all the petty conflict. I would love to have an adult discussion about trinitarianism as a remedy to the problems of dualism; I would love to have a discussion about the overlap of truth in Aristotle's hylomorphic theory of reality with Einstein's theory of special relativity, but how long do you think threads like those could stay on topic?

I'm rambling, my apologies.

I like the sub-forum idea. There will naturally be bleed over because both Spirituality and Philosophy deal with the ultimate reality. I think the benefit will be that in one forum open minded adults will be able to discuss issues within a given frame work of first premises, and in the other folks will be allowed to argue the validity of first premises.

I think most importantly a separate Spirituality forum will give new users a place to discuss the profound experience of the mushroom with open minded peers. It will also give people with faith in a higher power a place to talk with like minded friends.

The Materialists and Atheists can huddle in the Science forum, believers of all stripes can huddle in the Spirituality forum, and when they so desire they can engage one another in battle on the level field of Philosophy. :smile:

Edited by shroomydan (12/16/04 11:16 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: shroomydan]
    #3511653 -

shroomydan said:
The primary difference between philosophy and theology is that the first relies solely on human reason to discover truths, and the latter relies on divine revelation. If those who do not believe in divine revelation could simply abstain from posting in threads dealing with such matters then the problem would be solved. There are different frames of reference for different discussions; no one is served when a nonbeliever bombs a thread about Bible study with his "logic", and no one is served when a fundamentalist bombs a thread about evolution because the Bible says it didn't happen that way.




Exactly :thumbup: :heart:


--------------------
What it is, is what it is my Brother.
It is as it is, so suffer thru it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: shroomydan]
    #3512153 -

Quote:
The primary problem I see on both sides of this little drama is that there are a vocal handful of people who are more concerned with proving themselves right than with learning something. I've said this before but it's worth repeating; Humility is required for the apprehension of wisdom. Most of the people on this board are less than thirty years old, do you really think you have it all figured out already?



:thumbup:


--------------------
"Human suffering has been caused because all too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use, and that the mere presence of a word in the dictionary does not mean it necessarily refers to something definitive in the real world"
--Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene"

"It is the mind which creates the world about us, and even though we stand side by side in the same meadow, my eyes will never see what is beheld by yours."
-George Gissing

"Without a firm idea of himself and the purpose of his life, man cannot live, and would sooner destroy himself than remain on earth, even if he was surrounded by bread."
--Fyodor Dostoevsky

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: Kremlin]
    #3512289 -

Quote:
Spirituality and Philosophy (3 viewing)
General philosophical questions, discussions and debate including personal spirituality and religion in general.


When did it become wrong to use the S&P forum for it's DEFINED PURPOSE?

And alot of the "insensitivity" is really a misinterpretation of what debate and discussion is really all about. It's about getting to the chewy center... and some people have got to realize that it's either gonna be several thousand licks or maybe a few and a crunch.

There have been very few times where a poster (of the rational breed) began with an ad hominem attack. So few that I can't remember or find such an instance. The more sensitive posters have got to learn the difference between an attack on their PERSON and an attack on their IDEAS.

I will inform everyone here right now that I WILL NOT EVER attack YOU for what you believe. You can take my critique and throw it in the garbage can if you don't like it... but KNOW that I have nothing against you when I'm analyzing your posts. I harbor no ill intent.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: Sclorch]
    #3512470 -

" will inform everyone here right now that I WILL NOT EVER attack YOU for what you believe. You can take my critique and throw it in the garbage can if you don't like it... but KNOW that I have nothing against you when I'm analyzing your posts. I harbor no ill intent."


:thumbup: :heart:


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: kaiowas]
    #3512975 -

>> The more sensitive posters have got to learn the difference between an attack on their PERSON and an attack on their IDEAS.

What this amounts to is something along these lines: "The more sensitive people have got to just stop being that way."
The argument coming from the more sensitive people is along these lines: "The less sensitive people have got to just stop being that way."

It's ridiculous to expect that either side is going to concede. If there's going to be a solution here, there needs to be some amount of cooperation between these two conflicting groups. Both sides are going to have to make concessions.

Of course it's true that the more sensitive posters should learn to distinguish between criticism of their views and criticism of their person. But why must this be the only adjustment made? Is it because the more sensitive people are an inferior group next to the less sensitive people? Why shouldn't the less sensitive, or as you called them, "the rational breed", also make some kind of adjustment for the sake of keeping the peace?

Why is it appropriate for the "rational breed" to take the lazy route: becoming frustrated with the more sensitive people and asking them to "stop being that way", while it's totally inappropriate for the "sensitive breed" to take the same lazy route: becoming frustrated with criticism and asking their criticizers to "stop being that way"?

"If this person thinks so lowly of my ideas, then surely they must think lowly of me, the person from whom those ideas originated." Is it so intolerable that someone might make this correlation? This is a very short step, an easy mistake to make. Especially on the internet, there is vast potential for this kind of misunderstanding. Can others be blamed for this mistake? Should we be at all surprised that this is happening?

Just as much as the more sensitive posters must learn that criticism of their ideas is not necessarily critcism of their person, the less sensitive posters must learn that more sensitive people do indeed exist and will always exist, and that sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between critique and criticism. Neither side is going to convince the other to accept a double standard.

If someone is reacting personally to a deconstructive analysis of their ideas, it is the responsibility of the person performing the analysis to patiently and respectfully remind the user of their real intent. Doing this gives the reactionary user space to examine the necessity of their response. At that time, it is their responsibility to consider how they might better respond in the future.

If we approach conflict with an attitude of mutuality and confidence in our ability to move past our differences, we can put an end to this problem and grow together as a community. If we approach conflict with weakness, with an attitude of mere prevention, we will continue polarizing this community. The number of forums will increase. It will truly be a step backwards.

If we truly want to put an end to conflict and controversy, we need to uproot it's causes. Splitting the forums does not address the cause of the problem: our difficulty with respecting eachother's differences and coexisting peacefully. It is guaranteed that problems such as the one we're enduring now with the Swami situation will continue no matter how many lines we draw, no matter how many forum divisions we make.


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


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: Ped]
    #3513990 -

Quote:
Of course it's true that the more sensitive posters should learn to distinguish between criticism of their views and criticism of their person. But why must this be the only adjustment made? Is it because the more sensitive people are an inferior group next to the less sensitive people? Why shouldn't the less sensitive, or as you called them, "the rational breed", also make some kind of adjustment for the sake of keeping the peace?


Thank you Ped, for bringing some rationale into this!


--------------------
"Human suffering has been caused because all too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use, and that the mere presence of a word in the dictionary does not mean it necessarily refers to something definitive in the real world"
--Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene"

"It is the mind which creates the world about us, and even though we stand side by side in the same meadow, my eyes will never see what is beheld by yours."
-George Gissing

"Without a firm idea of himself and the purpose of his life, man cannot live, and would sooner destroy himself than remain on earth, even if he was surrounded by bread."
--Fyodor Dostoevsky

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: Kremlin]
    #3514223 -

All the more reason to have a "Seekers" subforum.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: silversoul7]
    #3514235 -

all the more reason to have both sides relax and work together, i would say :wink:


--------------------
"Human suffering has been caused because all too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use, and that the mere presence of a word in the dictionary does not mean it necessarily refers to something definitive in the real world"
--Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene"

"It is the mind which creates the world about us, and even though we stand side by side in the same meadow, my eyes will never see what is beheld by yours."
-George Gissing

"Without a firm idea of himself and the purpose of his life, man cannot live, and would sooner destroy himself than remain on earth, even if he was surrounded by bread."
--Fyodor Dostoevsky

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: Kremlin]
    #3514261 -

I've seen some "seekers" get very offended at some rather polite disagreements with their ideas. I'm not sure that a compromise can be reached with such people. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm condescending, and maybe I am, but it's simply not always the case that both are equally wrong. Sometimes, one side is more right than the other side. You can call me arrogant for thinking this all you want, but that's the way it is. I don't accept all this liberal hippy moral-relativist crap about how both sides are right. There is a right and there is a wrong. Now, I'm not saying any side is 100% right. I'll agree to tone it down a bit, but even when I do so in the past, people still get offended simply because of the fact that I question their ideas. When one side is following the rules and the other side still gets butt-hurt over it, maybe that side needs their own forum with its own rules.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Edited by silversoul7 (12/17/04 03:52 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: Ped]
    #3514472 -

More comments..

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that people who respond poorly to the most polite and constructive criticism are probably dealing with some painful feelings of insecurity, and are in the midst of working through some identity issues. By the same token, it doens't take a brain scientist to figure out that people who habitually present their point of view inflexibly and in a condescending manner are probably dealing with some painful feelings of insecurity, and are in the midst of working through some identity issues.

People deal with these problems in different ways. Some try to protect themselves by being quick on the defense. Others try to protect themselves by appearing unmovable or intimidating. When someone behaving with intimidation encounters someone quick on the defense, it is like mixing too much vinegar with too much baking soda. There is a reaction between the two, and a whole lot of foam spills into the Website Announcements and Feedback forum.

So the solution is not to become angry at the baking soda for mixing with the vinegar, or to become angry at the vinegar for mixing with the baking soda. The solution is not to command baking soda to behave more like vinegar, or for vinegar to behave more like baking soda.

An S&P that's all vinegar would be rather stagnate and useless. By itself, vinegar sits in a bottle and does nothing. An S&P that's all baking soda would be boring and meaningless. By itself, baking soda sits in a box and does nothing. A combination is necessary for any kind of progress to happen. We want progress at S&P. Therefore, the solution is for vinegar to use discretion when mixing with baking soda, and for baking soda to use discretion when mixing with vinegar. Both "rational", "insensitive" and "intuitive", "sensitive", need to understand the enormous value of the other, that either is complementary to the other, so that the effects of their interactions with eachother can be containable. If there is no respect for each other, there will always be the potential for a tremendous clash.

Rather than focusing on what makes us different from each other (our debating styles), it's much more helpful to focus on what binds us together in common (our wish to feel happy and secure).




silversoul7...

>> I'll agree to tone it down a bit, but even when I do so in the past, people still get offended simply because of the fact that I question their ideas.

If you're not very patient with people, there is always the "ignore" feature. It's been suggested that the people who feel hurt and offended use the ignore feature on users with whom they don't get along well. Why hasn't it been suggested that the people who feel annoyed by all the whining and over-sensitivity also use the ignore feature on those with whom they don't get along? Is it because it is "more right" to offend somebody inadvertently than it is for someone to become offended without sufficient cause? Why? Is it "more wrong" to overreact to to another's criticism than it is to unintentionally provoke someone with criticism? Why?

What justification is there to impose a double standard?


>> When one side is following the rules and the other side still gets butt-hurt over it, maybe that side needs their own forum with its own rules.

Before the method of splitting forums will be effective in putting an end to needless conflict, there will have to be a unique forum for each unique member of The Shroomery. The simple fact of the matter is that people in a community must coexist with eachother, and that before people can coexist peacefully, they need to learn to coexist peacefully. If our answer to this problem is to split S&P in two, we will have forfeited a valuable opporunity to learn to coexist peacefully, and condemn ourselves to repeat this process again and again in the future.


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


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: Ped]
    #3514527 -

Ped said:
>> I'll agree to tone it down a bit, but even when I do so in the past, people still get offended simply because of the fact that I question their ideas.

If you're not very patient with people, there is always the "ignore" feature. It's been suggested that the people who feel hurt and offended use the ignore feature on users with whom they don't get along well. Why hasn't it been suggested that the people who feel annoyed by all the whining and over-sensitivity also use the ignore feature on those with whom they don't get along? Is it because it is "more right" to offend somebody inadvertently than it is for someone to become offended without sufficient cause? Why? Is it "more wrong" to overreact to to another's criticism than it is to unintentionally provoke someone with criticism? Why?


I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. I'm not the one complaining about their posts. I just demand the same freedom to express my opinions that they want for themselves.

Quote:
What justification is there to impose a double standard?


No double standard. Just let everyone who follows the rules post their opinion. If some people wish for there to be more strict rules, they can have their own forum.

Quote:
>> When one side is following the rules and the other side still gets butt-hurt over it, maybe that side needs their own forum with its own rules.

Before the method of splitting forums will be effective in putting an end to needless conflict, there will have to be a unique forum for each unique member of The Shroomery. The simple fact of the matter is that people in a community must coexist with eachother, and that before people can coexist peacefully, they need to learn to coexist peacefully. If our answer to this problem is to split S&P in two, we will have forfeited a valuable opporunity to learn to coexist peacefully, and condemn ourselves to repeat this process again and again in the future.


The Pub was created because people wanted a more relaxed atmosphere than OTD. Considering that many people want to post in S&P without having their ideas questioned, even though this is well within the forum rules, I think maybe they should get their own subforum. A subforum is not splitting S&P. Rather, it is making a specialized forum within a forum. Your hippy dream of two sides with fundamentally different needs coexisting peacefully is unrealistic I'm afraid.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: ]
    #3514535 -

I think the best idea is to have posts marked as Non-Debatable if so desired. A speacial smiley to denote said threads is also a good idea IMO.
No need to split anything.


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: splitting S&P [Re: daimyo]
    #3514879 -

>> Considering that many people want to post in S&P without having their ideas questioned

That is not the case. It's not that people don't want to have their ideas questioned, it's that they don't want to be harshly criticized. The disagreement is centered around what "harshly criticized" means. Some people are oversensitive. Some people are flippant.


>> I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. I'm not the one complaining about their posts. I just demand the same freedom to express my opinions that they want for themselves.

That's right. You're not complaining about their posts, they are complaining about your posts. You are as free to ignore these people as they are to ignore you. Why must everybody else but you adjust?

You are saying that it makes no sense for you to adjust because they are doing something wrong, not you. I am saying that you are both doing something wrong. There would not be a conflict otherwise. Before there can be a real solution, both parites are going to have to admit that they are infact imperfect beings capable of making mistakes.


>> If some people wish for there to be more strict rules, they can have their own forum.

It's not the case that people want more strict rules. People want the rules to be more accurately defined so that "harshly criticized" is a visible line which, when crossed, is punishable without endless threads of squabbling debate.


>> Your hippy dream of two sides with fundamentally different needs coexisting peacefully is unrealistic I'm afraid.

My position is idealistic, I admit, but I have no arrogant expectation that typing out a few posts about fairness and equality is going to smooth over people's relationships at The Shroomery. Nonetheless, if I'm going to offer any solution at all, I'm going to offer a positive one and not a negative one. An example of a negative solution would be making two forums available so that people have the opportunity to escape their differences rather than accept them.

I don't agree that two sides with fundamentally different needs actually exist here. It is not as though these people are just innately incompatible like oil and water. All that is needed is more tolerance from either side. That means effort from you as well as the people you find so annoying.

I'd appreciate it if in the future you didn't dismiss as a "hippy dream" what I perceive as a fair, logical, and permanent solution to an ongoing problem. If you can discuss this without resorting to a dismissive, disrespectful stance, I'd be happy to continue exploring this issue with you.




>> I think the best idea is to have posts marked as Non-Debatable if so desired

It's been proposed that a clause be added to the S&P forum rules indicating that users are responsible for respecting the guidelines laid out for threads by the thread's initiator. Sometimes people want to pool experiences without having to defend their perspective on life. They ought to have the freedom to set that boundry within their own threads.


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


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

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

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Feedback and Administration > Website Announcements and Feature Feedback
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Split S&P? Admins, please weigh in.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 daimyo 10,743 125 09/29/05 01:02 AM
by gettinjiggywithit
* the topics contained in the philosophy forum nonick 901 9 10/13/05 02:25 PM
by TastyWaves
* hey can i get a subforum in the sports area?? and change radio sub? KingOftheThing 1,205 7 02/06/07 11:01 PM
by OldSpice
* New Subforum for Martha's DK1 692 4 05/06/05 03:27 AM
by Thor
* Shroomery Writer's Club Subforum? MOTH 926 8 12/15/05 04:36 PM
by SneezingPenis
* New subforum?
( 1 2 all )		 Yarry 3,319 38 09/04/08 01:09 PM
by Yarry
* Why is Brothel du Sportastica a subforum?
( 1 2 all )		 WhiskeyClone 2,771 20 08/06/06 07:09 PM
by Wysefool
* ethno garden subforum? CptnGarden 1,185 7 05/17/06 07:18 AM
by Anno

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Ythan, Thor, Seuss, geokills
2,513 topic views. 0 members, 24 guests and 2 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 0.028 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.