I find the difficulty/inability of some posters to process disagreement [and their resulting conduct] to be one of the interesting things that draws me to the goings on here, and how "extreme" someone is does not enhance this much for me and is therefore not indispensable.
In fact it's probably more revealing to see a relatively "moderate" poster swinging non sequitur fists and dishing out empty ad hominems in the face of dissent and inconvenient questions than it is for this kind of thing to be coming from an extremist who revels in seeming closed-minded and misanthropic.
Perhaps an 'invented' Hinds would become increasingly more moderate as he was convinced by the overwhelming evidence put to him that his extreme views simply didn't hold water.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke Do we need extreme view points to make these forums interesting, to keep us coming back?
No, we just need different view points. They don't have to be extreme. I personally find Hinds rather uninteresting. Dasa even more so. The only plus' in Hind's favour is he can complete a sentence and posts a lot. There are a few other posters that never keep a conversation going, or can't make a coherent sentence and thus rate lower than Hinds.
Originally posted by twhitehead No, we just need different view points. They don't have to be extreme.
I agree with this. I like talking to people who believe different things from me, much in the same way as ~ whenever I am back in the UK ~ I prefer to read newspapers that I am likely to disagree with.
Way back when in Ninety-seven (I sound like Steely Dan) there was talk about one Riley M. Sinder being a usenet robot that "was tearing up the atheist and evolutionist usenet newsgroups" as a rabid anti-atheist and anti-evolutionist.
So when I started reading and posting here, I soon met RJ and thought he might be a 'bot. He is so consistent, unabashed and clueless about his effectiveness.
Originally posted by JS357 Way back when in Ninety-seven (I sound like Steely Dan) there was talk about one Riley M. Sinder being a usenet robot that "was tearing up the atheist and evolutionist usenet newsgroups" as a rabid anti-atheist and anti-evolutionist.
So when I started reading and posting here, I soon met RJ and thought he might be a 'bot. He is so consistent, unabashed and ...[text shortened]... Here's some stuff on Riley:
'The results have been fascinating," says team member Ehmed Mudjavi.
'People have gone to a great deal of trouble to respond to our character,
and have even gotten really angry at him on occasion.'
Originally posted by FMF I find the difficulty/inability of some posters to process disagreement [and their resulting conduct] to be one of the interesting things that draws me to the goings on here, and how "extreme" someone is does not enhance this much for me and is therefore not indispensable.
In fact it's probably more revealing to see a relatively "moderate" poster swinging no ...[text shortened]... nd of thing to be coming from an extremist who revels in seeming closed-minded and misanthropic.
I find this interesting also. KellyJay for example is (apparently) now ignoring me because we disagreed, roigam does so intermittently but I suspect more to avoid individual topics than posters, Galveston75 has left the site several times over dissent against his views and opinions but when here he regularly ignored some people who disagreed with him.
It's perplexing behaviour as the ignored person can still post their opinions without duress so all the ignorer is doing is depriving themselves of being able to defend their position. It's a sort of forum version of the ostrich head in the sand tactic. In fairness to robbie carrobie he rarely does this although when severely pressed has done, possibly to prevent himself exploding in a torrent of abuse.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke 'If Hinds did not exist in these forums, would it be necessary to invent him?'
Do we need extreme view points to make these forums interesting, to keep us coming back?
Would it be as interesting if we agreed? I say most definitely it would!
There's nothing more exciting and interesting as is The Truth. The Truth provides an infinite potential in understanding of the issues and topics that we debate in this forum.
But without Truth there is no understanding. Just a menagerie of lies.
Originally posted by FMF I find the difficulty/inability of some posters to process disagreement [and their resulting conduct] to be one of the interesting things that draws me to the goings on here, and how "extreme" someone is does not enhance this much for me and is therefore not indispensable.
In fact it's probably more revealing to see a relatively "moderate" poster swinging no ...[text shortened]... nd of thing to be coming from an extremist who revels in seeming closed-minded and misanthropic.
Maybe the reason you find it that way is because you're always arguing against the wind. You base all your conclusions on your own rationale disregarding the possibility of Devine authority.
Originally posted by josephw Maybe the reason you find it that way is because you're always arguing against the wind. You base all your conclusions on your own rationale disregarding the possibility of Devine authority.
It's a debate and discussion forum; all any of us are doing here is trading and sharing our ideas, opinions and experiences.
Originally posted by josephw Would it be as interesting if we agreed? I say most definitely it would!
There's nothing more exciting and interesting as is The Truth. The Truth provides an infinite potential in understanding of the issues and topics that we debate in this forum.
But without Truth there is no understanding. Just a menagerie of lies.
Understand what you're saying; but if everybody agreed on a given topic, how could we be certain that it was the truth?
As others have stated, disagreements and alternative opinions are healthy as they have us reflect on and possibly modify what we believe.
For example; if everybody in a discussion agreed that the world was flat, we would feel confident in our belief that the world was indeed flat. It is only when someone comes along and says 'no, i think the world is round' that we are forced to evidence and defend our position, and just possibly concede that we didn't know the truth after all.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke Understand what you're saying; but if everybody agreed on a given topic, how could we be certain that it was the truth?
As others have stated, disagreements and alternative opinions are healthy as they have us reflect on and possibly modify what we believe.
For example; if everybody in a discussion agreed that the world was flat, we would feel ...[text shortened]... ibly concede that we didn't know the truth after all.
P.S The world is neither flat or round.
So if everyone agrees that the world is neither flat nor round, how can we be certain that it was the truth?🙂
Originally posted by josephw Would it be as interesting if we agreed? I say most definitely it would!
There's nothing more exciting and interesting as is The Truth. The Truth provides an infinite potential in understanding of the issues and topics that we debate in this forum.
But without Truth there is no understanding. Just a menagerie of lies.
12 Apr '15 12:23
Twist on Voltaire
Back to Top