Realism regarding "debating" on the internet

[Conservationist]

From another forum:

I think it make sense that I explain my view of people on the internet:

Most people are dysfunctional to varying degrees, and the internet accumulates a special type that is both dysfunctional and angry that this is so.

They are as a result determined to aggravate others, yet hide behind a social pressures, so that they get to feel important while basically having nothing to contribute.

Some of the people on The Genius Forum reminded me how prevalent this is. They are blatantly passive aggressive, yet pretend it's not so. They don't know the basics of argument, or care. They're there to seem self-important.

Snarkiness, provocation, and passive aggression are hallmarks of this type. Where an ideological term may use these methods to some productive end, the internet drama queen uses them to draw attention to themselves.

If you want to know what the real problem with humanity is, it's low individual quality:

* Dishonesty
* Egomania
* Disorganization
* Laziness
* Stupidity
* Pathological behaviors

The internet drama queens fit all of these traits like a glove. Not all people on the internet are this way. Whenever you see someone creating reactions, ask yourself if they're doing it (a) to draw attention to themselves or (b) to make a valid point.

We are fortunate at this forum to have a reasonable contingent of the #b category people, and I make a point to read their posts and consider what they say. The #a category people just get filtered out like other white noise, spam and the wailing of small children. - Sadist

Some of the discussion here (and everywhere else on the internet; you are not being singled out) is pointless to this degree, and I suggest we simply avoid it. There is too much of actual importance to discuss.

[Blair]

Oh ok thanks Mr. Presumptuous Shitweasel who has been posting (garbage) here for all of about two days.

[Dan Rowden]

It's hard to take that assessment of this board seriously given that most of the serious contributors (i.e. long term ones) go out of their way to develop proper arguments. That said, the next time I see someone falsely accuse a poster of an "ad hominem" fallacy I'm going to send them a pack of dog poo in the mail.

[jupiviv]

It's hard to take that assessment of this board seriously given that most of the serious contributors (i.e. long term ones) go out of their way to develop proper arguments.

You mean like Alex Jacob, Talking Ass, guest of logic, etc.? It's hard to call what they write "proper arguments."

[Talking Ass]

All of my recent posts, excepting the ones that are deliberately humorous and ironical, are reasoned posts expressed in clear prose. I always blend in other elements, and always include other twists, which you may or may not like, but that is your problem. I don't think that you (you and some others) like my starting point, which is deep scepticism about the soundness of your-plural philosophical and existential position, and the 'games' that are played among those who hold to these views. I think there is a general but not universal resentment that your-plural's 'image management game' is challenged in the first place, and I think it has been always a characteristic of this forum to ridicule or 'villify' (in certain GF terms) those who don't share the assumptions of the forum. This has almost been established without further need to 'debate' it.

In some sense it is a question of value; what sort of information and content is considered relevant, necessary and worthwhile to express. I suppose it must be the same for you, but should it happen that everything you've written were suddenly not there I would honestly feel that nothing is missing. Strange, eh?

As to 'ad hominem' I wote: "I am not opposed to the ad hominem approach, if it is taken to mean, literally, 'to the man'. Sometimes, it is necessary. I don't believe in arguments argued in a vacuum, or those abstracted from our persons. The person must always appear. Though there is little doubt that my critique of you had elements of ad hominem, and a touch of something close to or bordering in 'mean', there are moments when ad hominem (a critique of the person itself, the psychological structure of that person) is necessary. Maybe it is the only way to get through to them."

I do think there are limits to how far one can go with personal thrust, and there are many here who go to extremes in their personal attacks far in excess of myself.

I would also mention, humbly, that Dan and David (I have never seen Kevin do it, but most of his posts are one sentence long), when it becomes necessary, also engage in outright ad hominem *attacks* when they reveal what they *really* think of the person they disagree with. I don't have any problem with it. It is honest. It seems to me though that this is not wrong if in general one is genuinely trying to engage with the ideas. In my own case, this is all I have ever done, and from the beginning when I first signed on here.

Possibly---and please clarify if you can---you may be upset with me because I expressed to you that I think your 'enlightenment shtick' is fakery, and that the apparent basis of it---the absurd A is A formula/the way you use it---is pure silliness and not even worth refutation? I do indeed call this attachment to the absurd 'adolescent' and juvenile. That is my position but that is not all of my position. (The rest is expressed in arguments and a style that satisfies me). You are just some kid somewhere with an internet connection who plays a game where an 'enlightened personality' is presented to the world. For you and others here, saying that directly, is intolerable. Ridicule is the greatest crime here, the most devastating to your 'position'. And so apparently are direct statements.

If it ever happens that you want to engage in a conversation (with me) that is not a child's game of mathematical posturing and deals on substantial existential issues that are relevant to the actual way life is lived and the importance of these questions, I'd be happy to do it. Any part of what I have expressed here can also be put on the table.

And finally: Don't whine.

[Anders Schlander]

Alex..

If it ever happens that you want to engage in a conversation (with me) that is not a child's game of mathematical posturing and deals on substantial existential issues that are relevant to the actual way life is lived and the importance of these questions, I'd be happy to do it. Any part of what I have expressed here can also be put on the table.

I'd like that. But in my experience the opposite happens when you try to talk about the "ideas of this forum'" with you. Mind you, it doesn't matter if the ideas are used in this forum, what matters is whether they are true or not, even if they might have been spoken for eternity.

[Talking Ass]

This is where we last 'conversed':

Alex the donkey: You're hooked. Your own answer is contained in a psuedo-question. You don't need a yea or nay from me, do you? Sing to the choir, all those notes register in the very fabric of their being...

Anders: Well, while we could go back and forth for ages, I'll problably leave the talking ass to it's own for now. You are hooked if you get attached to the words, for those who don't, there is no hook to be hooked on. But i suppose it's not always easy.

Now you write:

"I'd like that. But in my experience the opposite happens when you try to talk about the "ideas of this forum'" with you. Mind you, it doesn't matter if the ideas are used in this forum, what matters is whether they are true or not, even if they might have been spoken for eternity.

Even according to 'you' an 'experience' is a most subjective thing...

I think I would suggest to you, Anders, that you have different expectations and perhaps 'needs' in your desire to communicate. I find it quite hard, except perhaps in a mathematical realm, to abstract 'truth' from a conversation among people attempting to define and live in accord with 'truths'. I think that you rather like an abstract (ie removed from the person) conversation about truth-principals, and that is fine if that is your bent.

And it doesn't matter, really, what particular idea or fact is 'true' or not (to me), what matters is the way the ideas are used and employed.

I would suggest that you describe where 'the opposite' occurs (whatever this opposite is) and/or simply engage with any point or idea that you feel is relevant.

PS: 'You are hooked if you get attached to the words, for those who don't, there is no hook to be hooked on', you wrote.

Is a completely unsubstantiated phrase that doesn't even qualify as debatable, or defensable. It has more in common (to be truthful with you and we all know how GFers love the truth) with a NewAge utterance.

[Tomas]

Alex..

If it ever happens that you want to engage in a conversation (with me) that is not a child's game of mathematical posturing and deals on substantial existential issues that are relevant to the actual way life is lived and the importance of these questions, I'd be happy to do it. Any part of what I have expressed here can also be put on the table.

I'd like that. But in my experience the opposite happens when you try to talk about the "ideas of this forum'" with you. Mind you, it doesn't matter if the ideas are used in this forum, what matters is whether they are true or not, even if they might have been spoken for eternity.

If it does go down make it happen in the Crucible Forum (where) it will be in one thread instead of all this back-and-forth snippety in some 20 to 30 threads in the Genius Forum.

How about it?

[Talking Ass]

You go to the Crucible, Tomas. I am not at all interested in that style of 'debate', and I certainly don't find it useful. I can only assume that this must also be true for the GoFers as no one has been playing childish charades down there. Your contributions, my friend, are 'snippity' to the tenth power...

;-)

[Conservationist]

It's hard to take that assessment of this board seriously given that most of the serious contributors (i.e. long term ones) go out of their way to develop proper arguments.

Please re-read this portion, especially the highlighted word:

From another forum:

Some of the people on The Genius Forum reminded me how prevalent this is. They are blatantly passive aggressive, yet pretend it's not so. They don't know the basics of argument, or care. They're there to seem self-important.

Some of the discussion here (and everywhere else on the internet; you are not being singled out) is pointless to this degree, and I suggest we simply avoid it. There is too much of actual importance to discuss.

Did you notice anything there that might change your opinion? Selecting a subset is not accusing "this board" of anything. Note that the second paragraph applies to a different forum/board as well.

That said, the next time I see someone falsely accuse a poster of an "ad hominem" fallacy I'm going to send them a pack of dog poo in the mail.

I agree. Most people cannot wrap their heads around the simple fact that ad hominems require this form:

Because you are stupid, anything you say about this point will be wrong.

Calling someone stupid is not an ad hominem.

However, most of the people on the internet are community college graduates who are out to prove they're something they are not, so they'll tell us all day how smart they are and then disprove it instantly.

[Kelly Jones]

Calling someone stupid is not an ad hominem.

Actually, it is. The argument, in long-hand, is "Your argument is false, and the reasoning that supports this statement is you are stupid."

An ad hominem argument is wrongly applied if the reasoning to support an argument rests on evidence of the character of the person one is debating, when the argument cannot be proven or disproven using that evidence. In other words, it's got "nothing to do with the pudding".

People who call others derogatory names generally intuit that they have no leg to stand on, and they are always driven by hatred and anger, not by reasoning.


..

[Talking Ass]

"Talking Ass, oh ye perceiver of angelic beings, you have been absolved of accusation of wrongdoing, on this day, 7/7/10, and you are free to go with sincere apologies of this Court. (Please don't nibble the flowers on the way out)----next!"

PS: Kelly Jones, you are very smart and very stupid and very young. Or, very young and very stupid and very smart. (Etc.)

[Anders Schlander]

Hey, i don't wanna clutter up all sorts of threads, but thought I'd atleast explain what I was trying to convey.

Hello Alex,

First, let me explain this sentence:

"You are hooked if you get attached to the words, for those who don't, there is no hook to be hooked on',"

Basically im saying: for those who understand that existence isn't inherent, there is nothing inherently existing that you need to depend on, that is, there is no inherently existing hook, which you can become hooked on. I was implying that you were attaching yourself to words.

I got the feeling, in the past discussion, that you were hiding behind complexity; I believe you said that all experience is subjective, i.e. truth is relative to the individual, and that the only way there can be 'absolute' truth is to fabricate it by such means as starting a cult and making everybody think the same way. Ofcourse, that's not really absolute truth either.

The main problem I figured, is the fact that you wanted to keep hold of this 'truth is relative, and individual'.

You say here:

You can DO anything you wish. But you do it subjectively. The point is that you cannot 'boil down' perspectives of all people to one 'absolute' perspective. But, you could join a cult where everyone thinks the same way and you could inculcate newcomers to also think in that way.

My reply as follows:

All perspectives, and indeed, all existence, is subjective, how can anything appear outside your mind, by definition, what appears is consciousness, and the subject too is consciousness. Now, if you say that by definition, a subjective mind cannot realize absolute truths, is that an absolute truth in your own subjective mind? or not? What stops a mind from experiencing the absolute, not the absolute perspective, but seeing beyond the perspective, into the absolute itself?

Right, I wasn't saying that experience isnt subjective, because it happens as consciousness, so I agree that experience is subjective, however....

you say a subjective mind cannot realize anything absolute, because it is always subjective. I was challenging that statement,
"Now, if you say that by definition, a subjective mind cannot realize absolute truths, is that an absolute truth in your own subjective mind? or not?"

If it is an absolute truth in ur own subjective mind, that there can be no absolute truth because of the experiences being subjective, then it is incoherent. If it's not an absolute truth, as it couldn't be as you say, then you are still open to error. You have not refuted the possibility that there can be absolute truth, so hiding behind the statement that absolute truth isn't possible because of all things being subjective experiences is invalid. My last question: what stops a subjective experience from realizing something which is true absolutely? again, the experience does not exist absolutely, but the truth is absolute. Can square circles exist in some people's experiences? Can hate exist without love? etc.

[Talking Ass]

For those who understand...whatever they understand...and whatever you understand...an interpretation of existence will flow out of that. It seems doubtful to me that any biological, incarnated, limited, ephemeral blip on the musical score of time & the universe could 'know' or contain the ultimate essence of what is. To say that a subjective mind likely cannot attain to a comprehension of The All is just...common sense. To speak in terms of Ultimate Truths seems a folly...for who 'knows' them, who defines them? The term itself---I say---is a problem child and needs a good spanking.

• You know, and I know, that I am not really helping you demonstrate to me that there is---coherently---an absolute truth to be known.
• To arrive at your cherished definition you need a willing participant, which is of course why I suggested 'singing those notes to the choir' because they are bound to resonate there. Why sing to a rusty tin can like me when beautiful harps abound?!?
• Question: if you happened to find yourself, as if by magic, in front of the greatest rascal of the Chinese Zen tradition---and let us say it was a bright spring day in 822AD---and you actually rehearsed (*muffled laughter*) your post, above, to him, could you/would you try to imagine how he would respond to you? (Hint: there are 1,239,862 'right' answers).
• Did you know that the Joker can play any card in the deck?
• Is there, in your view, such a thing as 'irreducible rascality'?

[Conservationist]

The argument, in long-hand, is "Your argument is false, and the reasoning that supports this statement is you are stupid."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

The two are conflatable:

(a) You think this argument is true because you are stupid. (Implied wrong argument)
(b) Because you are stupid, you think this argument is true. (Implied incompetence)

In addition, one can make a further mistake by assuming that because a stupid person agrees with an argument, the argument must be wrong.

[Unidian]

jupiviviviviviv said;

You mean like Alex Jacob, Talking Ass, guest of logic, etc.? It's hard to call what they write "proper arguments."

Heh, it's funny how the three (or actually two) most thoughtful and intelligent regular contributors on this board are singled out for abuse... attack those whose clearly superior intellect threatens one's grandiose self-image much?