|
| Thread: Why do you guys like to argue so much? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted February 02, 2009 01:17 AM |
|
|
@mvass: well you didn't post, I was talking about those who posted there, obviously. I thought that was obvious.
(or do you think I said "all of HC in its entirety?"  )
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted February 02, 2009 01:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Who?
Totally forgot his name, but I don't think you were there at the time, anyway...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2009 01:29 AM |
|
|
I'm not aware of any classical liberals here except for me and Corribus. Oh yeah, it must've been Corribus. He posts some very top-notch stuff.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2009 08:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
TheDeath:
Quote:
I was the only one who took love 'rationally' and you all disagreed
I didn't bother taking sides in JJ's and yours semantic quibbling but I agreed with you in the other thread.
This is not the first time I have to state that the most underrated thing of all seems to be language. People usually fail to notice how POWERFUL language actually is.
But if you think about how humans actually learn their first and basic language - intuitively - and much the forming of the conscious mind is making use of language, you'll probably appreciate how important "semantics" actually are.
Since communication is based on language and even thinking itself makes use of it, this is all important.
A simple exanple to illustrate the point:
Take the word "human".
Go back 2 centuries. You are a southerner somewhere in the South of the United States and you look at your "negroes". For you, what you see is not a human. Therefore human must be defined and semantically understood in a different way that today, so that "negroes" are not falling among those.
Now note the effect this has on any young US child then. They learn with basic language that "human" and "negroe" are two different things.
Do you see how powerful that is?
So you might say that semantics is actually EVERYTHING there is. ESPECIALLY - back to topic - when discussing things. Most debates evolves around semantics.
Take economic. If people are debating about communism, capitalism, liberalism, socialism, anarchism and other -isms, the main problem is, that everyone has a different "definition" of the -isms in question. This is not so much a function of the actual definition like you would read it in a wiki article. Since these are abstrac words with a lot of meaning and content, everyone connects a lot more with it, fills the phrase with meaning and content. For example, with "communism" critics may have the late USSR in mind; apparatchiks, old and wielding exclusive power to suppress the masses they are supposed to lead to victory over capitalism. And so on.
The same thing with "love". Quite obviously the opinion someone has about it depends on the personal definition of it, or how someone would describe what - for him or her - love actually MEANS.
And that's why basically every dispute IS about semantics.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted February 02, 2009 10:03 AM |
|
|
What I wonder about is, why is it, TheDeath puts this "" smiley in 99% of all his posts (excluding most of his 1-liners though) in the OSM since a few weeks? No matter if the topic is fun or pretty serious...
How serious is a post if it always ends with this kind of "punctuation"?
And then we are back to the origin question: Participating only because of arguing, or because the topic is interesting?
And then we may find a solution to the question why most of the OSM "debates" consist of 3 members. Most of the other members find "arguing just for the fact of arguing" instead of "stating personal opinions and listen to others" annoying.
@Mvass
Not sure what kind of debates you have in america on tv, but here we have several participants in such talks. I don't think "debate" is the correct term for a 2-members talk. I would call this a "contention" or a "disputation"".
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2009 10:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Most of the other members find "arguing just for the fact of arguing" instead of "stating personal opinions and listen to others" annoying.
If you'd followed your own advice you'd know one possible answer already: lots of words are badly defined; love for example. "Personal opinion" about something like that most often is equal to personal definition of the word.
The bottom line is that opinions can only reasonable compared when the basic understanding of what is discussed is mostly equal. If everyone understand "love" differently, opinions about it will obviously differ.
"Stating personal opinions and listening to others" assumes too much of a semantically identical vocabulary. We simply are talking too often about different things named equally.
If you want to test this you can simple make an experimental thread about a sufficiently vague key phrase like love or capitalism or evil or something like that and collect personal definitions of those from posters instead of calling for opinions. I'm sure there'll be lots of interesting results.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2009 02:47 PM |
|
|
JJ:
You have a point. But I don't think the definitions are as different as to merit several pages of debate.
Angelito:
Quote:
Not sure what kind of debates you have in america on tv, but here we have several participants in such talks. I don't think "debate" is the correct term for a 2-members talk. I would call this a "contention" or a "disputation"".
Here in America, on TV, I've never seen a debate between more than two people.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted February 02, 2009 02:53 PM |
|
|
But the real problem in my eyes in threads like "What is love" is this:
A few members explain what they think is love. After 1 page (at latest!) someone comes up with a biogical explanation of love. And that is where the thread starts to split. I think many threads in the OSM lately turn into "cold scientific" discussion pretty soon. It's no problem for me if there won't be a "winner" in a discussion (as it is in the religion threads), but if many members dare to elaborate their feelings about specific topics. religion has something to do with feelings and beliefs, but hardly something with science. Therefore it is nearly impossible to bring in logical arguments for things like God.
A Big Bang on the other hand is pure science. You either KNOW something about this due to your profession or because you have read tons of stuff about it, or you hardly know anything. But you can't blame people for believing in the BigBang if they do NOT belive in God. Because there aren't too many possibilities refering to the creation of the universe if you left out the existance of God.
So I would find it much more usefull for many members if someone who really has knowledge about the BigBang, could explain in kind of easy understandable words why we COULD believe in the BigBang. What makes scientist sure the BigBang did happen? How can they measure it? etc... This would lead more people into such discussions. This is more helpfull than telling someone he/she is wrong or he/she is writing nonsense.
Sooner or later we all will know if all the God talking and bible stuff is nonsense too....or not. But explaining helps more than "pointing with the finger".
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2009 03:16 PM |
|
|
Just for the record, I can explain why we should NOT believe in the theory of the Big Bang (but of course God is not the alternative; there are other possible rational and scientific explanations). 
Anyway, what makes me react immediately is a notion or opinion that's clearly - clearly at least for me - biassed by some notion or ideology or idea which isn't "scientific" (has no scientific points going for it) and serves a religious or ideological purpose.
Incidentally this has been going on in TWO threads dealing with sex as part of it, and let me make one thing clear:
I'm not going to stand idle when people are voicing opinions with the certainty of factual truth that has done nothing for a double-digit number of centuries except fillig people with guilt and be a cause of infinite pain.
However, the only way to do that is with reason.
Now, if you take stock for the Love thread again, you'll see that the actual turning point is Mytical's post on page 23, that says you should feel lust for the one you love, that would help with a relationship (and it's perfectly clear that Mytical was within the bounds of what MM started the thread for, which "love" was meant). Then Doom suddenly founds parental love and that love doesn't necessarly have to feature lust. I try to separate these, feeling that this is leading to what it actually lead to, then DeadMan comes in with Jehova's Laws of Love, and while I "retaliate" against religious self-righteousness TheDeath insists by putting brotherly and sisterly love into the equation as well.
To go back on track AT THIS POINT someone would have to post that all this parental and brotherly stuff is irrelevant FOR THE THREAD, since MM actually eant it for lover's love.
As no one did a discussion about what actually is love and whether lust has a place in it or not is basically unavoidable.
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted February 02, 2009 04:55 PM |
|
|
There really is nothing wrong with some of the points that JJ raised about semantics - especially in a community where we don't all share the same maternal language and confusion can often erupt because of this.
However, I do wish that when someone recognizes that there is a whole new topic to be discussed in relation to the original idea - they simply open a new topic.
Much of the irritation caused by the direction the 'what is love' thread took could have been easily avoided if someone had created a new thread called 'defining love' for example. Then we would have one place where all of those who enjoy discussing semantics, and their own opinions on the matter can do so without derailing the intention of the what is love thread.
I don't believe that this would have harmed the what is love thread in any way, as there are clearly still many people who just wish to share their experiences and look for the opinions of other HC members regarding their love lives.
In many threads the discussion will take a turn that might lead into a whole new topic, what people need to do is recognize whether or not those turns should just become a part of the natural flow of the thread, or if they merit their own separate topic entirely.
If a thread is dying, or if the main points have been covered over and over - a new turn can save the thread and bring life back to it, but in the case when there are people who are still actively discussing the original idea, this would be the time to start a new 'spin off' thread.
This is a win win for the OSM, because now we're seeing activity across the forum, and more people are participating - and the more active threads we have, the more diverse the group of participating members can be...
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 02, 2009 06:50 PM |
|
|
@angelito: Two reasons I post the "" smiley in almost every paragraph:
1) The paragraph has a question or an example that ridiculizes the situation -- the smiley is there to mention that indeed, it is an extreme scenario (i.e compared to the original), but sometimes to get an effect, you have to ignore the background 'noise', so it is useful as an 'idea'.
2) I'm addicted to the smiley. Many times where I should have put other smileys, I just type :P
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
MrCash
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted February 16, 2009 01:49 AM |
|
|
I cant help but think that part of the reason is because everyone is behind a screen. Debating in person is harder since you dont have time to think up responses/comebacks.
Also its safer. I personnaly would hate to debate with someone, like say, Rush Limbaugh. When he talks politics, I swear it looks like his veins are just gonna pop.
|
|
|
|
