Just quit giving me the finger, ok?
Just what I would expect from someone with a kitty cat for their avatar. You freakin finger bashing cat avatar having apostate. Why don't you go burn a watchtower or something?
Agree to Disagree
by wanderlustguy 50 Replies latest jw friends
-
wanderlustguy
-
JK666
WLG,
I believe that debate is a good way to find the truth. There are actually 3 truths in a debate: your truth, their truth, and the truth. A healthy debate will draw from both sides of the subject, and usually find the truth somewhere in the middle.
I also believe the Descartes statement: "I question, I think, therefore I am." It is important to always question everything, including ourselves and our personal motives and intentions.
No one of us is perfect at this, but it is important to endevor to make continuous improvement. I know that recently I clashed horns with someone that I disagreed with on this forum, and my personal behavior was not as I would have liked it to have been. All I can do is to learn from this experience, and incorporate this lesson in my future dealings with others.
JK
-
AK - Jeff
Why don't you go burn a watchtower or something?
Don't have any. And for that I thank God - or for those who don't believe in God - I thank doG.
Jeff
-
changeling
I agree: disagreements should be civil. State your opinion, but don't make ugly, personal attacks.
Make a suggestion, say what you think or what you would do in the situation, but don't try to force your opinion or choice on someone else by name calling or intimidation.
changeling ( I hate rude people)
-
nvrgnbk
It sounds like you are saying that nothing really means anything. That doesn't fly.
I agree with Jeff, the disagreements that cause "uncomfortableness' are often the most enlightening and eye opening. Otherwise, we might as well be back in the borg, nodding in agreement.
if you always agree to disagree before you even disagreed... many things that would have been worth hearing are left unsaid.
I'll throw out the theist/atheist debate as an example.
The answers aren't easy and semantics cloud the issue, but there is a reality.
Both positions cannot be simultaneously true.
I find most believers, many of whom I have great respect for, end the argument by saying something to the effect that they just can't believe that this is all there is. It always seems to end in a vague "There has to be something. There just has to be."
The reality is that God hasn't shown His/Her/Its face for a very long time. If He/She/It were real, there'd be nothing to debate.
We could choose to oppose Him/Her/It, but not deny the deity's existence.
We complicate it, and that's ok, when we want to call something that is real by the "name" God.
-
dawg
OK, so a guy likes to have sex with kids, lets just agree to disagree then that this is disgusting, and we shouldn't be so mean as to name call... he's no pervert, he's no molester, he just likes sex with kids...
Yea, I've already figured out that people get their feelings hurt when you call a pile of shit, shit... but its still just that!
-
nvrgnbk
OK, so a guy likes to have sex with kids, lets just agree to disagree then that this is disgusting, and we shouldn't be so mean as to name call... he's no pervert, he's no molester, he just likes sex with kids...
Yea, I've already figured out that people get their feelings hurt when you call a pile of shit, shit... but its still just that!
Excellent point, dawg.
Most all people agree that there is a line.
We just can't agree on what that line is.
-
bem
Below is a list of fallacies, arguments this post reminded of philosophy 101 so I had to look up the assignment.
btw, I for one agree with you WLG, it's the methods many choose to use that cause the most forum loss, that and some people can't stand to be wrong, or have others assume they are wrong.
1. Appeal to symbols (I wrap myself in the flag to demonstrate my patriotism).
2. Appeal to ignorance/unseen evidence (He's guilty because he had a gun we couldn't find).
3. Appeal to illogical premises (It's OK to cheat, everybody does it in this class).
4. Appeal to what's known (We know Germans like big cars, they make Mercedes).
5. Red herring (She's rich. Did you hear her children own big houses and boats).
6. Appeal to false authority (99% of family dentists say regular brushing is good; use Crest).
7. Ad hominem (attacks character) (Of course you support euthanasia, your parents are dead).
includes name calling: My opponent is a liar.
includes prejudice: Women just can't be good stock brokers.
includes guilt by association: She's a feminist so her ideas must be radical.8. Straw person/straw man (You may think it's cheaper to cut trees to make sacks, but I don't).
9. Begging the question (We should not give high grades because they will reward poor students as well as good ones).
10. Complex questions (When did you stop speeding in your sports car?).
11. Oversimplification (Love it or leave it!).
12. Equivocation (He's so successful-successful had many meanings).
13. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (After this, therefore because of that) /Correlation
(I ate pizza and got a stomach ache, so pizza must not be good for us)14. Slippery slope (We don't dare provide more scholarships. We'll be supporting the whole country if we do).
15. Generalization (The taxes are much too high).
includes pars pro toto (assumes what is true for part is true for all: That banker didn't pay his taxes on time. Bankers don't pay their taxes on time.) includes the opposite of pars pro toto (contradicting evidence is withheld: He was told to pay a penalty for late taxes. But, he paid his taxes on time; the mail was late).16. Faulty analogy (Well, the jet model worked in the wind tunnel, so that plane will fly).
17. Non sequitur (Pete likes to drink milk, so Jennifer is sure to like malts ).
18. Irrelevant reasons (I should not get below a B in this class because I worked hard).
-
dawg
OK, Bem, lets use the ad hominem argument... it means to the man and means you attack the man instead of the argument...
1st off, the list you gave says "my opponent is a liar" as an example... that isn't an ad hominem attack if the one that says it is telling the truth and can give reasons he has said such a thing....Ad hominem attacks are personal attacks/attacking ones character and lead to bad results in logic only if you don't have proof backing up what you said. Joe blow is a molester isn't an ad hominem attack if that person has been to prision for molestation and so on.
I have always maintained that your true friends will tell you the truth... people here are in different stages, I understand that... I have been through many of them myself, but there are a few I haven't reached. I can say that the truth has sometimes stung me, but after I setteled down I looked back I usually saw its still the truth becasue the evidence supported it.
SO, I basically disagree with the thread primie facie, I've not seen a lot of name calling here where the facts didn't back it up... as a matter of fact, the discourse here is mostly civil... Facts are still facts.
-
Gregor
changeling ( I hate rude people)
You and every Playmate's profile I ever read! LOL