For all future debates and discussions:

[JuliusCaesar]

[Major]

that


...and http://www.starportgame.com/sgeforum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14469

[Mel'Kaven]

Amen.

[JuliusCaesar]

Please accept my picture-size related apologies, but I don't feel like i can shrink it anymore and leave the font legible (did that in the edit).

[Major]

Please accept my picture-size related apologies, but I don't feel like i can shrink it anymore and leave the font legible (did that in the edit).

Thanks!

[JesusRocks765]

The person near the Question mark looks a lot like you JC

(Just Kidding - You start the Debate with your sentence and I will follow up)

[JuliusCaesar]

You've broken every rule there and deny it, I have no intention of debating anything with you.

[JesusRocks765]

Just your way of chickening out of a debate

[JuliusCaesar]

No, you just don't debate properly. Anyone can check out the now-locked thread and see that.

[MadAce]

This set of rules is pretty sad, really.

Shows how much some people rely on the concept of "winning or losing" and find it more important to challenge someone else's opinion rather than challenging their own.

Believe it or not, arguments can be valid whether or not someone who proposes them can defend them or not.

There is a real world outside the discussion...

[JuliusCaesar]

There is never a reasoned discussion where logical fallacies, hypocrisy, double talk, or unsupported statements are valid.

[MadAce]

There is never a reasoned discussion where logical fallacies, hypocrisy, double talk, or unsupported statements are valid.

If you were more fully versed in the detection of fallacies you would know this to be untrue. Read up on the Fallacy Fallacy. A statement can be true, even tho it has been defended using a fallacy.
As for hypocrisy... Ad hominem tu quoque, read about that. Hypocrites can be right.

I'll summarize it for you: idiots can speak the truth. Most probably an accident, but still the truth.

Like I said, you're trying to set up rules to "win" or "lose" discussions, which I find despicable. One should have discussions in search of the truth, not to inflate one's ego.


Pro tip: absolute statements like the one you produced are almost always in danger of being true.

[JuliusCaesar]

I never said that there are no positions which are true and based on fallacies (as your argumentem ad logicam challenges), I said there are no reasoned discussions with them involved. I do not make the point that JR's points are invalid for logical fallacies, only that he cannot support them with substantial points, and without support I see no reason to believe his assertations. The simple fact is he cannot support his position, nor has any other religious authority been able to do so effectively to my inner skeptic. I have challenged my beliefs already. I was born a christian, now I am an atheist.

And where do you see I have some kind of ego-driven motive? If I wanted to inflate myself I'd make this discussion on some place with more than ten active participants.

I do want truth. Only thing is JR felt it was necessary to push his beliefs on Harry Potter fans (which I am not one of, by the way) and felt he needed to tell them all why they are going to hell. This bothers me and is the source of the discussion. Why does he feel this way? Where is the truth in it? So far he can't support it at all, and I made this known.

And I do not care about "winning" some internet debate on theism. I already know there is no way to change JR's beliefs. He himself has said this. You say that I live too much for the discussion. Well perhaps this is right. I want him to challenge his beliefs, regardless whether or not he changes them. I want him to think for himself and make his own judgements. I'd rather he not be a hypocrite for his own sake, not the argument's.

These rules I set up have no bearing on trying to set up a way to win or lose anything. They are intended to (as the final box states) exchange ideas in an organized, rational way, towards finding what what is true or where more thought and reasoning is needed.

Ego has nothing to do with it.

[MadAce]

I never said that there are no positions which are true and based on fallacies (as your argumentem ad logicam challenges), I said there are no reasoned discussions with them involved. I do not make the point that JR's points are invalid for logical fallacies, only that he cannot support them with substantial points, and without support I see no reason to believe his assertations. The simple fact is he cannot support his position, nor has any other religious authority been able to do so effectively to my inner skeptic. I have challenged my beliefs already. I was born a christian, now I am an atheist.

And where do you see I have some kind of ego-driven motive? If I wanted to inflate myself I'd make this discussion on some place with more than ten active participants.

I do want truth. Only thing is JR felt it was necessary to push his beliefs on Harry Potter fans (which I am not one of, by the way) and felt he needed to tell them all why they are going to hell. This bothers me and is the source of the discussion. Why does he feel this way? Where is the truth in it? So far he can't support it at all, and I made this known.

And I do not care about "winning" some internet debate on theism. I already know there is no way to change JR's beliefs. He himself has said this. You say that I live too much for the discussion. Well perhaps this is right. I want him to challenge his beliefs, regardless whether or not he changes them. I want him to think for himself and make his own judgements. I'd rather he not be a hypocrite for his own sake, not the argument's.

These rules I set up have no bearing on trying to set up a way to win or lose anything. They are intended to (as the final box states) exchange ideas in an organized, rational way, towards finding what what is true or where more thought and reasoning is needed.

Ego has nothing to do with it.

It's not because not all sides of a discussion are able to formulate a solid reasoning behind their positions that a reasoned discussion is impossible. It's just harder. You are still able to question your stance and still able to reason with your opponent.

What you're trying to do is set up a framework of discussion which in practice would only allow people who are willing to change their opinion, are willing to (permanently) drop arguments and who are willing to embrace reason. If your aim is to find the truth then you should not discard a whole bunch of opinions so easily. Remember, an idiot can be right too.
The other stated rules are clearly drawn from debating circles which truly do not give a flying fµck as to what the truth is.
It should be possible that new arguments are introduced while another one has not been resolved simply because this will allow the discussion to continue to more interesting ground without anyone having to lose face which could dissuade them from continuing.
It should be possible to move on to another argument if facts have been proven false simply because one can still be right, even without knowing all the facts.
Evidence is nice, but not a strict requirement.
It is entirely possible that evidence simply does not cut it in the discussion at hand.

In short, none of the rules you propose will help find the truth in this particular context. Perhaps even on the contrary, as some people will be unable to join the discussion simply because they can not sufficiently defend their position, even tho they might be correct.

I bet this is the most attention JR has ever gotten for his beliefs. Good job on that! I haven't mentioned JR, you have. Now we know who it is that busted your ego so much that you need a framework to determine your superiority. If you feel a need to do this because of JR then I suggest you look into boosting your self-confidence.

[JesusRocks765]

I never said that there are no positions which are true and based on fallacies (as your argumentem ad logicam challenges), I said there are no reasoned discussions with them involved. I do not make the point that JR's points are invalid for logical fallacies, only that he cannot support them with substantial points, and without support I see no reason to believe his assertations. The simple fact is he cannot support his position, nor has any other religious authority been able to do so effectively to my inner skeptic. I have challenged my beliefs already. I was born a christian, now I am an atheist.

And where do you see I have some kind of ego-driven motive? If I wanted to inflate myself I'd make this discussion on some place with more than ten active participants.

I do want truth. Only thing is JR felt it was necessary to push his beliefs on Harry Potter fans (which I am not one of, by the way) and felt he needed to tell them all why they are going to hell. This bothers me and is the source of the discussion. Why does he feel this way? Where is the truth in it? So far he can't support it at all, and I made this known.

And I do not care about "winning" some internet debate on theism. I already know there is no way to change JR's beliefs. He himself has said this. You say that I live too much for the discussion. Well perhaps this is right. I want him to challenge his beliefs, regardless whether or not he changes them. I want him to think for himself and make his own judgements. I'd rather he not be a hypocrite for his own sake, not the argument's.

These rules I set up have no bearing on trying to set up a way to win or lose anything. They are intended to (as the final box states) exchange ideas in an organized, rational way, towards finding what what is true or where more thought and reasoning is needed.

Ego has nothing to do with it.

It's not because not all sides of a discussion are able to formulate a solid reasoning behind their positions that a reasoned discussion is impossible. It's just harder. You are still able to question your stance and still able to reason with your opponent.

What you're trying to do is set up a framework of discussion which in practice would only allow people who are willing to change their opinion, are willing to (permanently) drop arguments and who are willing to embrace reason. If your aim is to find the truth then you should not discard a whole bunch of opinions so easily. Remember, an idiot can be right too.
The other stated rules are clearly drawn from debating circles which truly do not give a flying fµck as to what the truth is.
It should be possible that new arguments are introduced while another one has not been resolved simply because this will allow the discussion to continue to more interesting ground without anyone having to lose face which could dissuade them from continuing.
It should be possible to move on to another argument if facts have been proven false simply because one can still be right, even without knowing all the facts.
Evidence is nice, but not a strict requirement.
It is entirely possible that evidence simply does not cut it in the discussion at hand.

In short, none of the rules you propose will help find the truth in this particular context. Perhaps even on the contrary, as some people will be unable to join the discussion simply because they can not sufficiently defend their position, even tho they might be correct.

I bet this is the most attention JR has ever gotten for his beliefs. Good job on that! I haven't mentioned JR, you have. Now we know who it is that busted your ego so much that you need a framework to determine your superiority. If you feel a need to do this because of JR then I suggest you look into boosting your self-confidence.

Nice madace, I love how much of a fool you make JC Look like with your clearly superior Intelligence

I must agree with everything you've said, and you have many good points

JC If you want to debate along those Guidelines, noone will debate you - Trying to use the logical fallacy of false dilemma really makes you look desperate.

[JuliusCaesar]

It's not because not all sides of a discussion are able to formulate a solid reasoning behind their positions that a reasoned discussion is impossible. It's just harder. You are still able to question your stance and still able to reason with your opponent.

I do not agree with this statement. Can a lunatic make the doctor suddenly question his discipline? No. Scientologists on the other hand have made some people question psychiatry, regardless of how correct they are, in the fact they do it in an organized manner.

What you're trying to do is set up a framework of discussion which in practice would only allow people who are willing to change their opinion, are willing to (permanently) drop arguments and who are willing to embrace reason. If your aim is to find the truth then you should not discard a whole bunch of opinions so easily. Remember, an idiot can be right too.

I see what you mean here, but lets face it, what are the odds of this happening in this context? Will this become valid at any point over this forum's lifespan? And as we have seen before, without any framework none of this happens anyway. Before the debate thread was picked up it was flaming accross 3 threads. These forums are not a place to find ultimate truth, but a discussion could work.

The other stated rules are clearly drawn from debating circles which truly do not give a flying fµck as to what the truth is.

Conjecture.

It should be possible that new arguments are introduced while another one has not been resolved simply because this will allow the discussion to continue to more interesting ground without anyone having to lose face which could dissuade them from continuing.

Or it would allow them to hide in their own passed-by arguments, and actually move on to accomplish nothing.

One can still be right, even without knowing all the facts.
It is entirely possible that evidence simply does not cut it in the discussion at hand.

With that assumption made and allowed for, why bother making the discussion? With that mindset in place is there really a need to change one's opinions or beliefs when one may just close their ears and keep telling themself they know the only truth there is?

In short, none of the rules you propose will help find the truth in this particular context. Perhaps even on the contrary, as some people will be unable to join the discussion simply because they can not sufficiently defend their position, even tho they might be correct.

Neither would running through several threads shouting at each other, especially when most of the shouts consist of things neither side needs to prove or support.

I bet this is the most attention JR has ever gotten for his beliefs. Good job on that! I haven't mentioned JR, you have. Now we know who it is that busted your ego so much that you need a framework to determine your superiority. If you feel a need to do this because of JR then I suggest you look into boosting your self-confidence[*].

You speak of truth, now I try to shed some of this light on his beliefs, and you ridicule me for that? Why do you keep spewing sh*t about ego? I don't care what he does or believes in only in his effect on others? Oh, and incase you didn't notice, It was only a few threads ago that he said you were trying to boost your self-confidence. It simply isn't an original argument at this point.

And JR you haven't understood a word for several posts. I doubt you understand the significance of any of the fallacies madace refers to. You don't seem to realize you are the idiot madace refers to in this situation.

[JesusRocks765]

I do want truth. Only thing is JR felt it was necessary to push his beliefs on Harry Potter fans (which I am not one of, by the way) and felt he needed to tell them all why they are going to hell. This bothers me and is the source of the discussion. Why does he feel this way? Where is the truth in it? So far he can't support it at all, and I made this known.

I don't care what he does or believes in

Obviously you do - as you always say you are arguing for me to open my mind (I already have and know even more how true Christianity is) and now you disregard it all? Now that your contradicting yourself to run away from your ego you might as well admit it - All you care about here is trying to make yourself look good in the eyes of SGE Players.

And JR you haven't understood a word for several posts. I doubt you understand the significance of any of the fallacies madace refers to. You don't seem to realize you are the idiot madace refers to in this situation.

I understand everything in these posts, and I just pointed out one of your fallicies, want me to point out more?

As soon as this debate returns to Religion, Ill be back in with everything, but in the meantime - I thouroughly enjoy watching MadAce set you in place with an intellectual whipping.

[JuliusCaesar]

I do want truth. Only thing is JR felt it was necessary to push his beliefs on Harry Potter fans (which I am not one of, by the way) and felt he needed to tell them all why they are going to hell. This bothers me and is the source of the discussion. Why does he feel this way? Where is the truth in it? So far he can't support it at all, and I made this known.

I don't care what he does or believes in

Obviously you do - as you always say you are arguing for me to open my mind (I already have and know even more how true Christianity is) and now you disregard it all? Now that your contradicting yourself to run away from your ego you might as well admit it - All you care about here is trying to make yourself look good in the eyes of SGE Players.

And JR you haven't understood a word for several posts. I doubt you understand the significance of any of the fallacies madace refers to. You don't seem to realize you are the idiot madace refers to in this situation.

I understand everything in these posts, and I just pointed out one of your fallicies, want me to point out more?

As soon as this debate returns to Religion, Ill be back in with everything, but in the meantime - I thouroughly enjoy watching MadAce set you in place with an intellectual whipping.

You misunderstand, I don't care what YOU do or believe in, I care about you and your belief's systrms effects on OTHER people, that is, forcing it on them.

And "contradicting myself to run from my own ego" makes absolutely no sense.

And no you don't seem to understand any of it. You pointed out nothing, you just jumped on madace's back and said i agree with everything he says (right after he used you as an example of an idiot as well, just shows you didn't understand it).

And i am not going to turn this back to religion. I do not want to continue a discussion with someone who has such profound difficulty in managing to make their point (as tenuous as it is already). However madace is a quite a bit sharper and accostomed to this. I find his viewpoint interesting but it contains flaws. madace, you make it seem that proof is not needed for truth. an interesting appeal to unreason. Now Prove it.

[MadAce]

It's not because not all sides of a discussion are able to formulate a solid reasoning behind their positions that a reasoned discussion is impossible. It's just harder. You are still able to question your stance and still able to reason with your opponent.

I do not agree with this statement. Can a lunatic make the doctor suddenly question his discipline? No. Scientologists on the other hand have made some people question psychiatry, regardless of how correct they are, in the fact they do it in an organized manner.

Yes, he can. It would most likely be an accident, but it's still a possibility.

Oh, and stop thinking of yourself as a doctor and JR as a lunatic. It's kind of insulting to doctors and JR.

What you're trying to do is set up a framework of discussion which in practice would only allow people who are willing to change their opinion, are willing to (permanently) drop arguments and who are willing to embrace reason. If your aim is to find the truth then you should not discard a whole bunch of opinions so easily. Remember, an idiot can be right too.

I see what you mean here, but lets face it, what are the odds of this happening in this context? Will this become valid at any point over this forum's lifespan? And as we have seen before, without any framework none of this happens anyway. Before the debate thread was picked up it was flaming accross 3 threads. These forums are not a place to find ultimate truth, but a discussion could work.

Since we do not know the odds it would be very inefficient to enact rules that are certain to do harm in this way and other ways.
With the framework the odds of having an interesting discussion (or in fact any discussion on this forum) are very, very slim. I'd rather have an inefficient exchange of ideas in stead of virtually none at all.

The other stated rules are clearly drawn from debating circles which truly do not give a flying fµck as to what the truth is.

Conjecture.

This is exactly what I mean. You're not trying to find the truth in this discussion. Because the truth is, as we both know, that these rules are used during (semi-) competitive debating. We both know that. And yet you say "conjecture". You do this because your ego could not allow my statement to go unchecked. You should have let it go.


It was a trap. Suggesting that somewhat professional debaters do not follow these rules, or rules eerily similar, is absurd. Can you imagine a debate where they don't follow these rules? Yet you demanded proof.

It should be possible that new arguments are introduced while another one has not been resolved simply because this will allow the discussion to continue to more interesting ground without anyone having to lose face which could dissuade them from continuing.

Or it would allow them to hide in their own passed-by arguments, and actually move on to accomplish nothing.

This is also a possibility, but not a certainty. I'd rather have the possibility of an exchange of ideas rather than very close to none.

One can still be right, even without knowing all the facts.
It is entirely possible that evidence simply does not cut it in the discussion at hand.

With that assumption made and allowed for, why bother making the discussion? With that mindset in place is there really a need to change one's opinions or beliefs when one may just close their ears and keep telling themself they know the only truth there is?

It's not because the other side will never change their mind that you never will.

In short, none of the rules you propose will help find the truth in this particular context. Perhaps even on the contrary, as some people will be unable to join the discussion simply because they can not sufficiently defend their position, even tho they might be correct.

Neither would running through several threads shouting at each other, especially when most of the shouts consist of things neither side needs to prove or support.

It wold seem to be me you're a little traumatized over your continued encounters with JR and you choose to use these encounters as a kind of anecdotal evidence of how bad discussions fare without this framework.

Luckily even in this semi-retarded (my personal opinion) forum the average quality of discussion is much higher than what you and JR mustered. In fact, you could travel the whole internet wide and far and see thousands of interesting and stimulating discussion which do not follow your little rules.

BTW, you're proposing a false dilemma by suggesting that it's either a multi-thread shouting match or the kind of discussion you're suggesting we should embrace.

I bet this is the most attention JR has ever gotten for his beliefs. Good job on that! I haven't mentioned JR, you have. Now we know who it is that busted your ego so much that you need a framework to determine your superiority. If you feel a need to do this because of JR then I suggest you look into boosting your self-confidence[*].

You speak of truth, now I try to shed some of this light on his beliefs, and you ridicule me for that? Why do you keep spewing sh*t about ego? I don't care what he does or believes in only in his effect on others? Oh, and incase you didn't notice, It was only a few threads ago that he said you were trying to boost your self-confidence. It simply isn't an original argument at this point.

My argument about ego is not invalid because JR used it. Although I must say that's a pretty refined ad hominem.

Let's be honest for a second here. We both know why a lot of people online have discussions. To satisfy their curiosity? Hell no! To find the truth? Hell no!

To suit their ego? Hell yes.

Am I wrong in assuming that your motivation is suiting your ego when the primary effect of your suggested rules would primarily prove to be a framework to win discussions rather than finding the truth?
Of course it is entirely possible you haven't thought this through and you proposed them with the best intentions.




Am I allowed to introduce a new point? ( ) This discussion. It's swell, isn't it? And we didn't need a bunch of limiting rules to achieve it, now did we?

Don't ruin a good thing because of JR. Do not allow the worst of us to dictate the actions of the best of us.

[JuliusCaesar]

Madace you seem to be fixated on the idea I am concerned with my ego, I'm just going to let that slide because there is no way to establish it as truth or untruth, and no matter how much i try to say i dont care about my ego, you or another will undoubtedly make the same assertion.

You keep talking about lofty ideals of unorganized discussion like we are all ancient greek philosophers or some other high council. This is not so. You claim I use absolutes in showing how this "unorganized discussion" hasn't worked with JR here and I in the process cut out possible interesting discussion. It has already happened, madace. An unorganized discussion on heated topics like this have ended in just a large amount on nonsense and flaming. You say it may not be necessary because it needn't be always so. I say it is because it has happened already and I have seen it happen elsewhere before.

I speak in practical terms madace, and without the presence of proof truth may not be made known or validated. And on that note madace I find your unsupported conjecture to be somewhat shocking. I thought your were better than insulting my intelligence against what i mean purely as an analogy, and better than basing a whole argument on what your opinion happens to be.

And i find it telling that you did not respond to my request for proof of your truth's (the lack of a need for proof) validation. You see madace what i have uncovered here is a paradox. Without the need for proof any subjective truth may be applied anywhere without consequence. Any truth moving beyond that would require validation. Without this validation any such "truth" is just a swell idea. You cannot say you don't need proof for the sole reason that sometimes rarely POSSIBLY truth will be stumbled on without proof.

[JesusRocks765]

This is the false dilemma - Noone cares what rules you follow in a debate, it's all about the points you make.

My opinion is that Madace is far more intellignent than JC, and JC has yet to say 1 intelligent post.

[MadAce]

Second, to MadAce:

The "rules" of discussion are meant to facilitate productive communication of ideas among us, wouldn't you agree? That is not sad, but instead represents progress on the foundations of human interaction.

I can relate to your point about some people concentrating on "winning" an argument so much that they overlook and even hide the weaknesses that they notice within their own points (hoping that their "adversary" does not pick it up). As true as this point is in certain situations, I do not think this idea is a warranted response to JC's opening post, primarily because JC has neither overlooked nor hid any argumentative weakness- the message was just a general set of guidelines for future debates and discussions. I do admit, though, as a standalone idea to add to the collective understanding about discussions, this point was invaluable. We certainly are not out to cheat people within discussions, but rather to further understand, communicate, and hence improve the world's collective knowledge and future.

I agree that points can sometimes be true even without evidence. In a general example, if a person knows the question and a relevant solution set, they can guess the answer without providing supporting evidence. To clarify, if a child were asked to find the derivative of 2x within a mathematical context, they might be able to guess the answer "2", and they would be right, but without the theoretical evidence (the fundamental theorem of calculus) to support their assertion. Again, this point makes an excellent addition to the "theory of knowledge" information contained within this thread, but is in no way a direct counter to the opening post.

The assertion that ego fueled JC's post in no way affects the validity and relevance of his message. That established, based on the context I have read, I do not think JC was concerned with ego as he started this thread, but rather just providing a clear set of guidelines for future debates and discussions.

Overall, I noticed a tension from you against the formality of discussion. Certainly, informal discussions are valuable at times, such as when time is limited, but guideline-based debates often enrich the interaction with greater ease of understanding and communication for all sides, even though such formality requires a deeper focus from its participants. For the most part, structured discussions are not something to dismiss as egoistic or detached from the real world; I hope you understand what I mean and agree at least to some extent.

I understand why JC thinks he's proposing these rules.

There are however two goals for rules being mistaken here. One set could facilitate finding the truth. Another set will make sure discussions can be win.

The former set is commendable, the latter is completely and utterly pointless in this context, except of course when one is aiming to stroke one's ego.

It is a fact that JC's rules are about winning and not finding the truth. In fact, his rules might hamper the search for truth.
By mentioning his ego I tried to annoy him (which worked) and tried to make him see why he chose these rules above others (apart from the fact that they already were in a handy pre-made image format).

Rules are fine. But not these.




You know, I sometimes have this urge to make my points with extreme brevity and without mountains of BS. But I noticed I only try and do this when I'm trying to be a black to someone else's white. How quaint.

Madace you seem to be fixated on the idea I am concerned with my ego, I'm just going to let that slide because there is no way to establish it as truth or untruth, and no matter how much i try to say i dont care about my ego, you or another will undoubtedly make the same assertion.

You keep talking about lofty ideals of unorganized discussion like we are all ancient greek philosophers or some other high council. This is not so. You claim I use absolutes in showing how this "unorganized discussion" hasn't worked with JR here and I in the process cut out possible interesting discussion. It has already happened, madace. An unorganized discussion on heated topics like this have ended in just a large amount on nonsense and flaming. You say it may not be necessary because it needn't be always so. I say it is because it has happened already and I have seen it happen elsewhere before.

I speak in practical terms madace, and without the presence of proof truth may not be made known or validated. And on that note madace I find your unsupported conjecture to be somewhat shocking. I thought your were better than insulting my intelligence against what i mean purely as an analogy, and better than basing a whole argument on what your opinion happens to be.

And i find it telling that you did not respond to my request for proof of your truth's (the lack of a need for proof) validation. You see madace what i have uncovered here is a paradox. Without the need for proof any subjective truth may be applied anywhere without consequence. Any truth moving beyond that would require validation. Without this validation any such "truth" is just a swell idea. You cannot say you don't need proof for the sole reason that sometimes rarely POSSIBLY truth will be stumbled on without proof.

If you look at the amount of times I mentioned your ego and look at my total amount of sentences then you'll see I'm not fixated by your ego.

It is precisely because these forum does not consist of the sharpest knives on the planet, or more accurately consists of a bunch of retards, that I think your rules serve no point but to exclude virtually everyone from discussions up to a point that it is almost impossible to come closer to the truth.

The horrific fact that unorganized and slightly flamey discussions have taken place (with all monstrous repercussions for all future generations of the human species, may god have mercy on our souls, oh lament, widowed wenches of slain orators and curse thyself and thine lost children oh virgin females who's husbands have perished in flames as hot as the fires of Hephaestus. Throw your wretched, useless bodies off the cliffs so that future sailors might see your carcasses broken on the salted rocks, and know the horrors of unruly discussions) on these forums I find much less worse than having almost no discussions at all.

If you truly cared about practicality you would have proposed rules that would facilitate discussion, would not have excluded anyone from participating and would, contrary to your proposal, be at least remotely enforceable without causing even greater flame wars than are already the case.

[Mel'Kaven]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54VJWHL2K3I

Yup.

[JuliusCaesar]

Well madace I prefer quality over quantity. To be honest it makes me hate humanity to see a bunch of dribble spewed on the forums. You have an opinion differing that. So be it.

And you are right, it isn't my ego you are focused on (this is my own fault, I was not specific enough) it is my CLEARLY OBVIOUS desire to "win" an internet discussion, with as you said, a bunch of retards. I considered your belief in my motives to be part of the whole "ego" issue you think I have.

And practically speaking, as I have said before, a bunch of useless dribble is just that. It isn't practical to sift through mountains of retarded unsupported I love puppies for a nugget of truth, which probably isn't there, and especially when the discussion aimed at reaching that truth is even more chaotic.

Lastly (this will also be my last reply in the topic, as it has far strayed from the guidelines posted about "supported opinions", or worse yet "logic"), if you look at the end of the beginning's "no" linkages, that is, where all the "Nos" lead to, it says "I will not talk to you about this topic."
Please note, "I will not talk to you about this topic." in no way am I imposing rules on a discussion, or am I forcing an exclusive elitist "debating club" modus operandi on you, or am I forcing you all to adhere to these rules. It would be nice if you did, but that is beside the point. Just don't count on me participating in them. If you want to speak in absurd loops of logic or totally disregard any impetus for support for your statements, go ahead. I will probably mimic your style though, sounds like it would be fun ^-^. If you want to look through mounds of illogical and flat out retarded points because you think there may be truth in it, go ahead! That is your perogative. I; however, will not. And madace, judging from the fact you have barely posted anything in any of the topics which I pointed out were ridiculously stupid, it really seems like you don't even have the patience to find "truths" in the discussions you whole heartedly support the right for stupidity and illogic.

[MadAce]

I understand why JC thinks he's proposing these rules.

There are however two goals for rules being mistaken here. One set could facilitate finding the truth. Another set will make sure discussions can be win.

The former set is commendable, the latter is completely and utterly pointless in this context, except of course when one is aiming to stroke one's ego.

It is a fact that JC's rules are about winning and not finding the truth. In fact, his rules might hamper the search for truth.
By mentioning his ego I tried to annoy him (which worked) and tried to make him see why he chose these rules above others (apart from the fact that they already were in a handy pre-made image format).

Rules are fine. But not these.

You know, I sometimes have this urge to make my points with extreme brevity and without mountains of BS. But I noticed I only try and do this when I'm trying to be a black to someone else's white. How quaint.

Ok, if I interpreted you correctly, your assertion is that JC's rules in his opening post are primarily concerned with winning discussions; then by the relationship between winning/losing and ego, you have indirectly formed the connection between JC's rules and ego. A classic logical statement, with 1 premise of fact (JC's rules deal with winning), 1 premise of linkage (focusing on winning discussions is egoistic), and 1 deductive statement (JC's rules are egoistic). Assuming that the premises are correct, I would wholeheartedly agree; yet, I question one premise.

I agree with the second premise, that of linkage, that those who focus on just winning discussions are very much out to boost their ego than have a meaningful exchange of ideas with one another.

However, I disagree with the first premise that JC's rules are primarily associated with winning discussions. I'll go over what the opening post image contains to let you know what I am thinking:

"Can you envision..." - deals with the flexibility of all involved parties in the discussion to be open enough to change their minds if the evidence warrants it.

"If one of your arguments are shown to be faulty..." - deals with the willingness of all involved parties to admit false logic when such is discovered.

"Are you prepared to abide by..." - deals with the readiness of all involved parties to be rational/logical in their assertions and supporting statements.

"You cheated..." - deals with the concluding overview of noting if all involved parties followed the conventions of discussion.

"Congratulations, this is how rational human beings exchange ideas." - deals with the successful outcome of information exchange. This is really the kicker, because this summing statement is not that a party wins a discussion, but rather that both parties have exchanged ideas and have changed positions if the evidence warrants it.

Based on the above analysis of JC's opening post image, I assert that the premise of fact in your logical statement is false. I do agree with your logic, though.

I don't care what those rules are supposed to have as an effect. If attempted to be enacted (as enforcing them is pretty insanely impossible unless you're naive as fµck) on these forums these rules would not have a positive effect. Period.

The other side being willing to change their mind, the other side being willing to admit false logic and people being willing to abide by rules are not guarantees, and in this case quite detrimental if your aim is exchanging ideas. Especially in this case since on these forums a rational human being is quite rare.

BTW, didn't you get the hint?

Well madace I prefer quality over quantity. To be honest it makes me hate humanity to see a bunch of dribble spewed on the forums. You have an opinion differing that. So be it.

And you are right, it isn't my ego you are focused on (this is my own fault, I was not specific enough) it is my CLEARLY OBVIOUS desire to "win" an internet discussion, with as you said, a bunch of retards. I considered your belief in my motives to be part of the whole "ego" issue you think I have.

And practically speaking, as I have said before, a bunch of useless dribble is just that. It isn't practical to sift through mountains of retarded unsupported I love puppies for a nugget of truth, which probably isn't there, and especially when the discussion aimed at reaching that truth is even more chaotic.

Lastly (this will also be my last reply in the topic, as it has far strayed from the guidelines posted about "supported opinions", or worse yet "logic"), if you look at the end of the beginning's "no" linkages, that is, where all the "Nos" lead to, it says "I will not talk to you about this topic."
Please note, "I will not talk to you about this topic." in no way am I imposing rules on a discussion, or am I forcing an exclusive elitist "debating club" modus operandi on you, or am I forcing you all to adhere to these rules. It would be nice if you did, but that is beside the point. Just don't count on me participating in them. If you want to speak in absurd loops of logic or totally disregard any impetus for support for your statements, go ahead. I will probably mimic your style though, sounds like it would be fun ^-^. If you want to look through mounds of illogical and flat out retarded points because you think there may be truth in it, go ahead! That is your perogative. I; however, will not. And madace, judging from the fact you have barely posted anything in any of the topics which I pointed out were ridiculously stupid, it really seems like you don't even have the patience to find "truths" in the discussions you whole heartedly support the right for stupidity and illogic.

I frankly am appalled that you would think for one second that your preference is somehow remotely relevant. Especially to me. Delusions of grandeur?

Without any quantity you're not going to have any chance of quality. It's is quite true that if you have nothing it becomes quite easy to filter this nothing for something, but not very productive.

But I'm quite happy that you would not enforce "your" (as if you could have thought them up, ha!) rules on these forums. An extra win is that you will shut up. Perhaps then I will have the courage to try and help out JR without having to also battle your incessant flood of shortsighted and empathy-less drivel. Because let's face it, I'm hardly going to be stimulated by someone who is constantly "wooshed" by a religious nut.

Next time when you feel a$$-hurt by a retard because he didn't fall to his knees crying because your amazing wisdom made him question his precious little illusion which is probably the only thing that keeps him remotely functional as a human being, please don't think that your, singular, personal experience in this field should somehow result in rules being drafted for everyone, even if you have the good sense to simply suggest these rules in stead of wanting to enforce them.

[JuliusCaesar]

You sure I'm the one who is "@sshurt?"

[MadAce]

You sure I'm the one who is "@sshurt?"

If you can't find a sensible reply, it's sometimes better to shut up.


Not a rule, just a suggestion...

[JesusRocks765]

You sure I'm the one who is "@sshurt?"

If you can't find a sensible reply, it's sometimes better to shut up.


Not a rule, just a suggestion...

You can tell when JC is out of arguments, he will post something like "???" or what he just posted, in a desperate attempt to turn his losing argument into a joke.

[JuliusCaesar]

I frankly am appalled that you would think for one second that your preference is somehow remotely relevant. Especially to me. Delusions of grandeur?

The statement wasn't directed to you it was directed to anyone who wants to discuss anything with specifically me. If you don't want to then fine. How does this make me delusional? Yet some how stating this makes me self important? Huh?

But I'm quite happy that you would not enforce "your" (as if you could have thought them up, ha!) rules on these forums. An extra win is that you will shut up. Perhaps then I will have the courage to try and help out JR without having to also battle your incessant flood of shortsighted and empathy-less drivel. Because let's face it, I'm hardly going to be stimulated by someone who is constantly "wooshed" by a religious nut

What the hug does half of this even mean? They aren't "my rules", I never said they were. I think it would be nice if we could have organized discussions by them. That's it. "An extra win is that you will shut up." Wow, sounds like someone really wants to learn truth, and really doesn't care about winning. Irony much? "Perhaps then I will have the courage to try and help out JR without having to also battle your incessant flood of shortsighted and empathy-less drivel. Because let's face it, I'm hardly going to be stimulated by someone who is constantly "wooshed" by a religious nut" ??? Seriously what in the hug are you talking about. What the hug is being "wooshed"?

Next time when you feel a$$-hurt by a retard because he didn't fall to his knees crying because your amazing wisdom made him question his precious little illusion which is probably the only thing that keeps him remotely functional as a human being, please don't think that your, singular, personal experience in this field should somehow result in rules being drafted for everyone, even if you have the good sense to simply suggest these rules in stead of wanting to enforce them.

For the love of Cthulhu... First off I am not in anyway "a$$-hurt" I just want some actual discussion. And I know that they are impossible to enforce, ffs I'm not a mod. And they are just suggestions. If you don't want to follow them, fine! Just don't call on me to give my rational, serious point in a flame fest. And as a side-note, we seem to differ in our definitions of "discussion". I want organized discussion like my suggestions support. You feel that having these enforced (which for the thousandth time they don't need to be) would stop all discussion. No, flame-fests (your definition of "discussion") would still go on, and not a nugget of OBJECTIVE "truth" would come out of it because no one would support their statements or yield points. Perhaps the truth would be seen in such a discussion, but it would remain purely SUBJECTIVE and confined to only the person who stated that truth. That truth would be limited to that person since there would be no way to validate it or support it or move it beyond the rabble of opinion and generalization. If anything my suggestions have nothing to do with "winning" a super-serious internet discussion (like I give a sh*t), and more to do with moving that truth beyond one person and into general knowledge. It has more to do with spreading the truth, rather than finding it and bulldozing over it (as an unorganized discussion would do).

And speaking of which, it most certainly is not up to you to make generalizations about JR's ability to function, with or without religion.

And JR, a question mark is just that.

[JesusRocks765]

Nerds talk funny when they're mad