the futility of debate

[Pistonsbeneath]

lets not go there. i don't remember you always behaving this way. i was just assuming you were having a bad day.

I can behave as I wish & will when responding to whats in front of me..

sorry if it offends you..lets leave it but I'm not accepting I've done anything wrong my friend

[elbe]

ever stop to think that the dog might be think please don't through this fucking stick again, just leave it where I've put it.

[djshiva]

parson, you know i love ya, so take this as it is meant.

you talk about the presuppositions imposed on debate, and you are a great example of just that, and the part about debate that i don't like. you say that debate is useless, then when people challenge you on that notion, you don't seem to want to actually listen to what people have to say, but continue to repeat your hard and fast idea, without seemingly making any attempt to hear the other points, or concede even an iota. it sets you up to seem arrogant and condescending, even if that is not your intent.

perhaps debate isn't a method that does anything for you, because you don't seem willing to really listen to other ideas and understand that there are different viewpoints other than yours.

some people would dismiss debate because it doesn't result in truth. others find debate fun and healthy because they know it won't result in "truth", but in increased understanding and perhaps new ideas to think about.

with the parameters you have set up to define debate (must result in truth or it is completely useless), you seem to discount that people may engage in debate for completely different reasons than the parameters you have set. by confining your points to this rigid notion, you make it pointless to engage in a discussion, because your goals and the goals of others within it, are so diametrically opposed AND you have set your rules as the frame of this discussion. therefore, we can continue to tell you our reasons, but within your mind, our reasons are moot because the framework (the presuppositions) have been set.

can you concede that sometimes the point of a debate is simply to do some thinkin' and have some fun in the process, and not this all encompassing Mulder-fest of seeking the absolute truth?

[parson]

if somebody said something i hadn't considered before they would get recognition for that, but if you wanna tell me about something i'm intimately familiar with, i probably won't acknowledge it. it is not that it is being ignored. it is that i already know it.

i said what you said was true. i just said that in order for debate to not breakdown into noise, all participants must be in high percentage of agreement. this means they must have a system of presuppositions that are being reinforced.

[Pistonsbeneath]

if somebody said something i hadn't considered before they would get recognition for that, but if you wanna tell me about something i'm intimately familiar with, i probably won't acknowledge it. it is not that it is being ignored. it is that i already know it.

i said what you said was true. i just said that in order for debate to not breakdown into noise, all participants must be in high percentage of agreement. this means they must have a system of presuppositions that are being reinforced.

but regardless of what you have looked at that I haven't you cannot second guess anyones personal experience in this world and we all have much to learn from each other...

I would need to talk to you properly and for you to be open in order to show you the things I have seen/know that you don't but you're unwilling to even enter into any such discussion...

I agree with you on many levels but I also feel the need to scrutinize everything from all sided including those that hold the maverick opinions..

I don't know why you think I'm being unreasonable..I am an open book and happy to admit my frailties & failings and that I don't know what much...

[parson]

questioning maverick opinions with the most standard perspective possible is hardly breaking new ground though.

[parson]

anyway i'd love to stay and share more but i've got to go run some errands.

ciao y'all

[Pistonsbeneath]

questioning maverick opinions with the most standard perspective possible is hardly breaking new ground though.

okay why & what did you think was standard about my questioning..

And do you think standard = wrong on all occasions or do you believe the least spoken critique?

it's just a question and not intended to be loaded at all

[parson]

focus on the bold.

[djshiva]

aight i have to leave this interesting discussion and go to work. i am sure when i get back there will be 15 pages. LOL.

remind me later parson, i have an example that both reinforces and counters what you are saying at the same time. and i think there is something to think about in that last sentence.

[metalboxproducts]

the topic is that debate is futile and has no relation to truth.

Yeah yeah i should read all the thread but i just wanted to add this now.

Yeah the problem often seems that debating or debates often come down to who can argue their point better, not really about the truth at all.

[bellybelle]

if it is in a similar context of a Platonic dialogue, i think it can do some good....but unfortunately that wholly depends on the willingness of the participants to be wrong as well as right.

if people are more willing to accept they could be misinformed or mistaken, or their viewpoint could be different, et. al,; it could be a powerful tool for broadening horizons...

however...and this is with a heavy heart to say...perhaps that requires a level of honesty people are uncomfortable with, in that partially it has to admit some level of ignorance, fear, shame. So many times we train ourselves to counter these negative emotions because they are unpleasant and we often thwart our own opportunities for growth in favor of medium status quo.

And since people aren't usually as honest with themselves as they could be, debates become these methods of employing the cruelest aspects of our civilized culture: one where barbs are freely thrown and our points are whittled into thinly veiled attacks. People are offensive or defensive, guarding from their behavior externalized and projected onto others based on their own understanding of the issues and so much gets lost...

so that as we know it, debate becomes a swordfight of words, where people don't think enough about what is actually being said, but only instead focus the energy and efforts on a way to sharpen our ability to attack each other..... No one listens when they need to get the jump. People don't read each others work or try to hear the intention. We read each others words as if looking for ammunition, and disregard the meat of the matter for the mere opportunity to one up. I'm equally guilty of this so its not like I'm setting myself apart from this at all. But I hope that being cognizant helps me reflect on my behavior and be a bit more cautious in my speech, though since i'm very human, that isn't always guaranteed.

I can't guarantee the level of honesty of my opponent and can only be responsible for my own, so the only choice I have is to take things at face value, while also honing my observation skills to be more aware of when someone appears to be an opportunist as opposed to someone hoping to broaden their horizons. Oh and exposure.....always better to ask someone to clarify without derision so that you know what specifically you're responding to. The Light is the best disinfectant. When all manner of hands are exposed, either by different truths or by allowance of vulnerability, then we can make progress. We can grow. We can learn.

[relaks]

all encompassing Mulder-fest

I liked the idea of a mulder-fest

[Pistonsbeneath]

if it is in a similar context of a Platonic dialogue, i think it can do some good....but unfortunately that wholly depends on the willingness of the participants to be wrong as well as right.

if people are more willing to accept they could be misinformed or mistaken, or their viewpoint could be different, et. al,; it could be a powerful tool for broadening horizons...

however...and this is with a heavy heart to say...perhaps that requires a level of honesty people are uncomfortable with, in that partially it has to admit some level of ignorance, fear, shame. So many times we train ourselves to counter these negative emotions because they are unpleasant and we often thwart our own opportunities for growth in favor of medium status quo.

And since people aren't usually as honest with themselves as they could be, debates become these methods of employing the cruelest aspects of our civilized culture: one where barbs are freely thrown and our points are whittled into thinly veiled attacks. People are offensive or defensive, guarding from their behavior externalized and projected onto others based on their own understanding of the issues and so much gets lost...

so that as we know it, debate becomes a swordfight of words, where people don't think enough about what is actually being said, but only instead focus the energy and efforts on a way to sharpen our ability to attack each other..... No one listens when they need to get the jump. People don't read each others work or try to hear the intention. We read each others words as if looking for ammunition, and disregard the meat of the matter for the mere opportunity to one up. I'm equally guilty of this so its not like I'm setting myself apart from this at all. But I hope that being cognizant helps me reflect on my behavior and be a bit more cautious in my speech, though since i'm very human, that isn't always guaranteed.

I can't guarantee the level of honesty of my opponent and can only be responsible for my own, so the only choice I have is to take things at face value, while also honing my observation skills to be more aware of when someone appears to be an opportunist as opposed to someone hoping to broaden their horizons. Oh and exposure.....always better to ask someone to clarify without derision so that you know what specifically you're responding to. The Light is the best disinfectant. When all manner of hands are exposed, either by different truths or by allowance of vulnerability, then we can make progress. We can grow. We can learn.

this is the best thing in this thread..

I hope that when I debate I am open enough to take on boards the things others say that are interesting & provocative...however it's when others are not open at all that people tend to get drawn into an argument

[slothrop]

Yeah the problem often seems that debating or debates often come down to who can argue their point better, not really about the truth at all.

This is a big advantage of the internet from a point of view of debate, though... it removes the onus on being able to think on your feet, and also the inability to challenge people's sources. If I'm talking to you in person, I can say "ah, but what do you think of the Bloggs Report which says that you're indisputably wrong?" and there's not much you can do about it. On the internet, you can go away and look up the Bloggs Report and find out that it says nothing of the sort. If you get flat footed by an ad hominem, you don't stand there looking gormless, you go away and think about it and then respond that it's an ad hominem and you'd rather people stayed on topic.

[slothrop]

questioning maverick opinions with the most standard perspective possible is hardly breaking new ground though.

But accepting maverick opinions without question isn't breaking any new ground, either. Because sometimes maverick opinions are wrong.

And when we're talking about real world situations, wrong opinions can be harmful. Is it breaking new ground to question the maverick belief that sleeping with a virgin cures AIDS? No. Does it save lives to do so? Yes.

[bellybelle]

Yeah the problem often seems that debating or debates often come down to who can argue their point better, not really about the truth at all.

This is a big advantage of the internet from a point of view of debate, though... it removes the onus on being able to think on your feet, and also the inability to challenge people's sources. If I'm talking to you in person, I can say "ah, but what do you think of the Bloggs Report which says that you're indisputably wrong?" and there's not much you can do about it. On the internet, you can go away and look up the Bloggs Report and find out that it says nothing of the sort. If you get flat footed by an ad hominem, you don't stand there looking gormless, you go away and think about it and then respond that it's an ad hominem and you'd rather people stayed on topic.

the other advantage internet debates allow is a greater sense of anonymity and the removal of being accountable in a personal, immediate sense for how your words affect someone else. though i do believe you cannot be entirely held responsible for how your actions are perceived, having to watch someone respond immediately tends to have a softening effect on delivery. When there is no accountability, people feel completely comfortable because someone's reaction invoking guilt or shame is completely removed. There is no need for having a social conscience if you can remove the social part and you don't have to face a personal reaction.

I do not believe half of the really rude, inflammatory comments on this board are really indicative of how people function. I think people would probably be able to think of people as equals and empathize at least enough to be tactful (gosh I hope) if they had to have the conversations in person. Besides the fact that a person's sense of whimsy and style might be totally lost in clothing someone else's words in your interpretation. Online communications are rife with bravado and if you don't have to admit maliciousness or cruelty without the offended person present, why would you? There are soo many avenues for error....but even still, when it works....its glorious.



* You = Universal

[parson]

questioning maverick opinions with the most standard perspective possible is hardly breaking new ground though.

But accepting maverick opinions without question isn't breaking any new ground, either. Because sometimes maverick opinions are wrong.

And when we're talking about real world situations, wrong opinions can be harmful. Is it breaking new ground to question the maverick belief that sleeping with a virgin cures AIDS? No. Does it save lives to do so? Yes.

is adhering to a system that is dedicated to systematic destruction of the environment, promotion of war, and the poisoning of the population harmful? yes. does it promote every man for himself mentality, where all anybody wants to do is come out ahead? yes. does questioning it save lives? yes.

look at the big picture. the environment is failing. health is failing. people are getting less education, and are less happy and more apathetic since they have been in memorable history. people are under more control than ever. the psychic landscape is more homogenized than EVER.
the world has never been more miserable than with the current paradigm.

[slothrop]

questioning maverick opinions with the most standard perspective possible is hardly breaking new ground though.

But accepting maverick opinions without question isn't breaking any new ground, either. Because sometimes maverick opinions are wrong.

And when we're talking about real world situations, wrong opinions can be harmful. Is it breaking new ground to question the maverick belief that sleeping with a virgin cures AIDS? No. Does it save lives to do so? Yes.

is adhering to a system that is dedicated to systematic destruction of the environment, promotion of war, and the poisoning of the population harmful? yes. does it promote every man for himself mentality, where all anybody wants to do is come out ahead? yes. does questioning it save lives? yes.

look at the big picture. the environment is failing. health is failing. people are getting less education, and are less happy and more apathetic since they have been in memorable history. people are under more control than ever. the psychic landscape is more homogenized than EVER.
the world has never been more miserable than with the current paradigm.

So you don't think it's possible to question the current paradigm without blindly accepting everything that's contrary to the current paradigm?

[parson]

do you think it is possible to have a discussion with a bunch of implied ad hominem