Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

.

[miauw62]

My fucking parents always get mad at me for not being able to shut down instantly.

[TD1]

I don't really understand the Western Civilization obsession with dualism. I'm actually not talking about gender--it's the Light and Dark, Hope and Despair, etc. and blah blah blah. I get that it makes for a lot of really good drama, but at this point the drama needs to be played up a bit more for that to work... yikes.

Oh well :<

Let's all become monists!

It's just a small step from there to atheism....

[Vector]

.

[Bauglir]

I don't really understand the Western Civilization obsession with dualism. I'm actually not talking about gender--it's the Light and Dark, Hope and Despair, etc. and blah blah blah. I get that it makes for a lot of really good drama, but at this point the drama needs to be played up a bit more for that to work... yikes.

Oh well :<

I think it's got a lot do do with a cultural drive to have concepts ordered - a line is a very simple way to organize things, and it naturally gives a straightforward bidirectional thing. I dunno, though. I do know I like tagging things more than ranking them, if you see what I mean, letting relationships arise naturally out of interactions instead of trying to anticipate how things are supposed to be. Then again, I'm kind of fixated on the cultural obsession with control right now, so I might just be filtering everything through that.

NINJA'D: I might be more on track with what you're getting at than I thought!

[Kadzar]

You dork [1]. I mean that I feel like our debating style isn't equipped to discuss anything more nuanced, and the idea that you "win" a debate by convincing someone else of your position--instead of evolving positions between the two of you, and being rewarded for being eloquent and insightful in this learning interaction--is totally asinine.


[1] That's right. I called ya a whale cock, punk.

I think I get what you mean. Like how, when doing research for a debate, you're supposed to ignore the stuff that goes against your position because it's supposed to be up to your opponent to bring that stuff up. Or the fact that the other person in a debate is considered your opponent.

[TD1]

You dork [1]. I mean that I feel like our debating style isn't equipped to discuss anything more nuanced, and the idea that you "win" a debate by convincing someone else of your position--instead of evolving positions between the two of you, and being rewarded for being eloquent and insightful in this learning interaction--is totally asinine.


[1] That's right. I called ya a whale cock, punk.

Hey, if you get to call me a whale cock, can I call you a gorilla cock?

[Orange Wizard]

You dork [1]. I mean that I feel like our debating style isn't equipped to discuss anything more nuanced, and the idea that you "win" a debate by convincing someone else of your position--instead of evolving positions between the two of you, and being rewarded for being eloquent and insightful in this learning interaction--is totally asinine.


[1] That's right. I called ya a whale cock, punk.

It's because the majority of people are stupid and can't understand anything more nuanced.

[Tack]

That's right. I called ya a whale cock, punk.

Chill, Dude.

*smirk*

[Graknorke]

I don't understand what the problem is. In an argument the point is to convince the other person that you're right. That's just what an argument is.

[Tack]

Wrong. The point of an argument is:

1. Educate each-other. If one wasn't up to scratch, then awesome, argument over.
2. Identify the point of contention (The crux of the matter.). If there isn't one, then awesome, argument over.
3. Realize that you have that single common point of contention, shake hands over the irrevocable truths deep within your respective hearts, leave, frustrated.

[Rolan7]

Or if it's a public argument, the point is to convince the audience of your preconception (and possibly discredit your opponent).

But it ought to be what Tack said.  An argument ought to take two sets of ideas and refine them against each other until both sides are closer to the truth.

[TD1]

Hrm. I think people argue with the intent of proving the other wrong, but end up refining their beliefs. In this case, I don't think intent matters much, but the result.

[Bauglir]

There's lots of reasons for communicating in lots of modes, and it's mostly a matter of figuring out what you want out of it, what you think the other people involved want out of it, and if it's worth the trouble of giving that to them, or at least that's what I think. That's all just a philosophical dictum of mine, and I can't back it up.

I'm not saying you're necessarily and universally wrong, I'm just a bit bothered by the idea that a medium of expression should have one, and only one, objective - or, perhaps, more bothered by the idea that it ought to be codified into a Right and Wrong way to do things.

I'm just gonna bask in the delicious irony of arguing over what the point of an argument is for a moment, though.

[Shook]

So last night i nearly had a nervous breakdown, and today i'm feeling physical symptoms of fairly severe stress (nervous bowels, pressing sensation in chest (no my heart is fine), restlessness...). Life's not nice at all right now, although at least the doctor says that i probably don't have a depression, given how my sadness and anxiety have a fairly definite cause. :I