06 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Wulebgri disagree.
......
It is important to be able to distinguish facts from opinions; and it is important to be able to evaluate the credibility of the sources. Those who cannot do that are not capable of debate. ......
i believe people who are best capable of open debate are exactly the opposite.
good debaters are not limited to sacred facts and truths.
good debaters are happy to argue for or against any claim, and they are happy to use any source.
when a conflicting source appears they are equally happy to embrace it or shoot it down.
the person you describe with your two sentences is all-classifying,
they are incapable of meaningful open discussion.
they are set in "teacher" mode.
they will tell ... and hope that everyone else simply listens and trusts.
if anyone else says anything then they do not learn.
06 Jan 05
Originally posted by gamebitloverWell said. I cannot but agree with you.
People seldom change their opinion as a consequence of any debate. Debates serve the purpose of only bringing all kinds of opinions in the zone of consideration. HAVE YOUR SAY NO MATTER WHAT OTHERS SAY - is the spirit of debates here.
It is in the detached observation by a third person observin ...[text shortened]... adage -- A MAN CONVINCED AGAINST HIS WILL, IS OF THE SAME OPINION STILL-- holds.
06 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by flexmoreDebate relies on evidence--facts. Without facts, without some agreement on what sorts of facts can be accepted as credible, you have a quarrel, rather than a debate.
i disagree.
i believe people who are best capable of open debate are exactly the opposite.
good debaters are not limited to sacred facts and truths.
good debaters are happy to argue for or against any claim, and they are happy to use an ...[text shortened]... and trusts.
if anyone else says anything then they do not learn.
Here at RHP, I've read and participated in several debates, and I've seen and been subjected to several quarrels.
You started the thread on the moonwalk and a debate ensued. In this case, a fact had to be reestablished because allegations had been made. That fact was established because the allegations are based on manufactured evidence, wild conspiracy theories, and observations of apparent inconsistencies in the data. The allegations were easy to refute, but several persist in their unbelief. Now the debate has degenerated into a quarrel because no amount of factual evidence matters to certain folks.
Of course, I expected that my bipartite classification might become the subject of a debate.
There is still plenty of room to debate Johnson's lie about the Gulf of Tonkin, for example. That he lied is well documented; why he lied, and the effects of his lie are where I think we'll find the best room for debate. If someone want to allege that he didn't lie, then teacher mode, as you call it, seems the required response.
06 Jan 05
Originally posted by flexmoreNo offence taken at all.
i do not think anyone is open to debate on everything.
i believe we each have our areas of sacred ground where we just do not care about the arguements of others.
maybe our grandparents told us a sacred truth ... or whatever.
no personal offence intended.
i am enjoying the landing on the moon thread: for me it was a sacred truth that the landings we ...[text shortened]... e ... i feel more open about it now.
to be able to examine the evidence openly is liberating.
I have no sacred ground (as far as i Know) i will debate absolutely anything on any subject and I am open to any view or arguement
I adhere to a philosphy called (by me) supra-agnostism which demands this as part of its tenants.
I have scanned the moon thread and it is indeed interesting.
cheers
06 Jan 05
Originally posted by Wulebgri thought the "debate" started out as a quarel:
..... You started the thread on the moonwalk and a debate ensued. In this case, a fact had to be reestablished because allegations had been made. That fact was established because the allegations are based on manufactured evidence, wild conspiracy theories, and observations of apparent inconsistencies in the data. The allegations were easy to refute, but sev ...[text shortened]... degenerated into a quarrel because no amount of factual evidence matters to certain folks .....
bigmouthed people stating their own opinion and refusing to listen to others.
the only time people would consider the others point of view was when they found inconsistencies in their arguement .... they would never consider the opposing point of view when that opposing view held together!
07 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by flexmoreNo.
there was a thread about this ages ago ... i would prefer to simply bring that back but i could not find it.
so the question is:
[b]did you ever change your opinion as a result of a debate?
please give an example.
plea ...[text shortened]... informed about simple factual answers to simple factual questions.[/b]
As proof...
Have you ever met a person who "loves" his/her parents who oppose them politically?
I have not. And I don't think I ever will. We call it "conditioning". me and mr. orwell.
SVW's First Rule Of Chimpness...
We are what we must be to be part of our earliest TRIBE. We conform or we die. By the hand of the "old male guy". Whatever and whoever that is. Nothing ever changes. After we once conform... we are "that" for life. With a very, very, very -- rare exception. Silly chimps. eh?
07 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyGotta disagree with that SVW, my mother is a conservative capitalist, I on the other hand am a liberal with no concern for money, I love her unconditionally. I also have to say that I know plenty of people who oppose their parents politically. Perhaps it is a cultural thing, british families may have different values to american ones, who knows? But it does happen.
No.
As proof...
Have you ever met a person who "loves" his/her parents who oppose them politically?
I have not. And I don't think I ever will. We call it "conditioning". me and mr. orwell.
SVW's First Rule Of Chimpnes ...[text shortened]... life. With a very, very, very -- rare exception. Silly chimps. eh?
As to debate changing my mind, I guess that depends on the subject. To elaborate, if I know a great deal about the subject then it is less likely that I am susceptible to change, as I believe I am intelligent enough to make an informed decision that fits in with my moral values. So something like my views on violence, religion or music are pretty tough to challenge. However, if the subject is something I am either less informed on, or less concerned with then I am bound to be more open minded.
I do agree that nurture is the most likely of opinion formers, but intelligence and experience is the deciding factor on whether you stick with those values, times change and things your parents believe are not always applicable to you. Whether you choose to accept this or stick with their values depends on the person in question.
07 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanOk.
Gotta disagree with that SVW, both my mother is a conservative capitalist, I on the other hand am a liberal with no concern for money, I love her unconditionally. I also have to say that I know plenty of people who oppose their parents po ...[text shortened]... this or stick with their values depends on the person in question.
You are a mind wipe.
So?
Most people have the abilty to think. Sorry.
Whatever group you fell into that made you turn from your tribe must be at least the equivilent of the "BBC". Snark.
07 Jan 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWoah, it's way too early in the morning for this, but I shall answer you briefly.
Look, Starman
I don't want to pick my nose. Nor a fight.
Are you a socialist?
Why?
That is about as far as we need go. Because you are not as good at making a living as your mum. Sorry. That's the way of it.
If you make more money than her... are you as happy as her?
No I am not a socialist.
I make enough money to get by, but no chance to save anything.
I'd say that I am happier than her as she is nearing 60, has no job, few friends and she has lived alone for the last 10 years. I on the other hand have friends aplenty, a woman I adore and who adores me. I am generally very happy.
Do you judge a person's worth by the amount of money they earn?
07 Jan 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI disagree with what she thinks sometimes, so yes, she is wrong in my opinion. Sometimes that means we get angry at each other, but rarely. Most of the time we just agree to disagree.
Conditioning.
When you move to a different tribe, you leave what you were. You become what will allow success.
Mind wipe. You said yourself you love your mum. Is she "wrong" or just on the outside of your current tribe?