Regulations
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Regulations |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 30 2007 03:12
Profile
Based on the comments on the thread I'm wondering if such "discussion" would even be welcome on these boards. I didn't get the impression that it was just in the wrong place on the forum, but that this forum was the wrong place. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 30 2007 03:44
Profile
I've never been in such a serious prolonged debate (I don't really count drakons v humans). It was really my first evolution v creation debate as well. I got in some debates years ago in Christian boards but soon left off for the same reasons I saw here. People that post don't tend to do so to learn, but only to argue. So their reasoning is skewed towards that end. All the things that the evolution guys were frustrated with me over I was likewise frustrated with them for the same reasons. If a debate were to work it would have to be about more than simply 1-uping your opponent. Both sides would have to be willing to really try to see the other persons side, to yield when the opposition makes a good point, and admit to it. And here's the real catch - they'd have to be willing to be open to the posibility that they are completely wrong. I imagine you'll be hard pressed to get guys like that in a debate. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Wednesday, May 30 2007 04:52
Profile
quote:You just don't get it, do you? Explaining to people why you believe in something just ain't the same as explaining scientific discourse. People got frustrated wiht you because you kept insisting you knew the difference while carrying on as though you didn't. quote:That's the bottom line, sort of. You imagine! Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 30 2007 05:51
Profile
Honestly I don't get it, Locmaar. I think I have strong scientific basis for my position and presented it. My suspiscion is that the frustration came from questioning closely held beliefs and showing that they were not so firmly rooted in reality. I will certainly acknowledge I am probably not as learned as some, but there was a serious intellectual lack on the other end as well. Maybe something about my style is frustrating, but I find it difficult to believe that I could have kept folks engaged for so long if my position had no validity. If I'm wrong then I'm just another religious nut, but if I'm right the the implication is that the scientific community in this age is no different from any other - right about some stuff but wrong about a whole lot. I think that may be a bit much for some to handle. It always has been. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Wednesday, May 30 2007 06:35
Profile
quote:Curiously enough, this was my impression after your first post, including your very polite style. quote:I wouldn't worry too much about being right. You just keep believing you're right and let people who want to go beyond that handle the rest. Edit: choice of wording :rolleyes: [ Wednesday, May 30, 2007 06:50: Message edited by: Locmaar ] Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 31 2007 09:26
Profile
The fact that you associate politeness with something negative speaks of your perception. Most likely instead of stepping back and drawing your own conclusions you have been infuenced by the hype on this thread and in our society that associates faith with emotion and lack of logic. The simple truth is that when it was time to focus and present a logical argument mine was the only one. All the rhetoric in the world doesn't change that. You'll say my logic was flawed (of course I'd disagree), but ponder what it means that the other side was unable to present anything - not even a bad argument. You want to "go beyond" and be right, then look through the smoke-and-mirrors excuses that my final request on the other thread was off topic or distracting and use your own mind - because it wasn't. I asked the same of them that they asked of me. There was a lot of hemming and hawing and quitting, but zero answers. You should answer it for yourself for the sake of critically reviewing your beliefs. Or you can close your mind and follow the self-affirming pattern of attacking those that question you, in which case you'll never "go beyond" anything. The original poster said he learned from the experience, and that's good. I can only hope that he learned half as much as I did. Even at the end when I was tired of it all I saw more of serious logical flaw in their reasoning. If I'm ever in another one of these "discussions" I know to go right for the jugular. Thanks to my friends here who taught me where it is. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, May 31 2007 09:54
Profile
Homepage
*tries to resist, can't — sorry, Jeff* One could equally well say that there was a simple question that you never answered, despite it being posed over and over again for pages and pages. Ask yourself why you never answered SoT's original question. The answer you get will be rather similar to the reason why no one ever presented a logical argument for evolution. It's not that I couldn't answer your question; it's that I chose not to, just as you chose not to answer my question. However, I gave a reason not to answer your question: it's distracting. You may call it smoke-and-mirrors all you want, but that doesn't make it any less true. Nothing in me giving a logical argument for evolution would have any impact on your ability to answer the question posed. If I did gave such an argument, you'd start trying to say that the argument that I gave for evolution was worse than your argument for creationism, and we'd never get anywhere. Previously, whenever anyone pointed out a problem in your argument for creationism, you'd change the subject again. I was trying to make you stop changing the subject whenever someone brought up a difficult point. The attempt failed, but only because you stopped saying anything at all (god only knows why — you never really explained why you couldn't answer my question, only that you really wanted someone else to answer your question first, but why?). Generally, then, I suppose SoT's experiment, trying to focus on a single issue, failed because Stillness simply refused to participate. Stillness, for whatever unexplained reason, didn't want to focus issue-by-issue to make sure that everything that he was trying to say was clear, no matter what incentives I threw at him ("I will concede literally every other point in the discussion"). Still, its failure here, as I have suggested a few times, is not a failure of the method in general. This experiment may be worth trying again with someone who is less stubborn and more willing to try to make the discussion worthwhile. [ Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:07: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 31 2007 10:11
Profile
quote: Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 31 2007 10:54
Profile
By the way I did answer your questions. You didn't answer mine - which I can't stress enough was exactly in harmony with the issue on which we were focusing. I also acknowledged on the thread that the validity of my argument was not dependant on the weakness of yours. You all were really the ones that didn't follow through and participate. (Somehow you convinced yourselves that it was me). When I saw that I stressed the issue by stalling. That's why I hesitated before giving my answer (as I did explain repeatedly in the thread) - which I can't stress enough that I ultimately did give while you did not. My final argument did answer the valid question about why I think as I do. Questions about what's impossible are invalid. If you look closely at my argument it doesn't deal with impossiblilities. You all made valid points and I adjusted. So, the reason can't be that it was off-issue - because it absolutely was not. That leaves the real reason to the imagination of the reader. The answer is obvious to me. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, May 31 2007 13:22
Profile
Homepage
While I'd like to jump back into the debate, I can't. Firstly, it's not a debate anymore, and it's debatable whether or not it ever really was one. Secondly and more importantly, we've seen that this leads to unhappy Jeff. —Alorael, who wins this debate by argumentum ad ultima ratio regum. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2