1. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23701
    11 Dec '05 22:151 edit
    Destructive to .... the "intellectual heart of these forums" (the term's author is No1marauder).

    Now that is a good point, marauder. The issue of the "intellectual heart of these forums" and what is destructive to this heart.

    Two questions I would like you to adress very openly and freely about this issue you raise:

    - Do you think insulting people like you do so often, also in this thread, is destroying the "intellectual heart of these forums" or is adressing these annoying methods destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums"?

    - Do you think applying manipulative techniques is destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums" or is adressing them destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums"

    What are your answers to these simple questions ?



    Of course I can add the following interesting question:

    - Do you think bullying is destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums" or is adressing bullying destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums"

    What's your answer, Marauder ?
  2. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    11 Dec '05 22:25
    Originally posted by ivanhoe

    - Do you think applying manipulative techniques
    Describe the alleged manipulating techniques. What does it mean to manipulate somebody in a discussion of Spirituality? What end could one hope to achieve through manipulation?
  3. Standard memberroyalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    Elsewhere
    Joined
    29 Nov '02
    Moves
    17317
    11 Dec '05 22:391 edit
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    What end could one hope to achieve through manipulation?
    An orgasm?
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    11 Dec '05 22:452 edits
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Destructive to .... the "intellectual heart of these forums" (the term's author is No1marauder).

    Now that is a good point, marauder. The issue of the "intellectual heart of these forums" and what is destructive to this heart.

    Two questions I would like you to adress very openly and freely about this issue you raise:

    - Do you think insulting p ...[text shortened]... ng destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums"

    What's your answer, Marauder ?
    No; Yes, when doing so is irrelevant to the topic discussed (which it always is).

    No; Yes, when doing so is irrelevant to the topic discussed (which it always is).

    Thanks for your time!
  5. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    11 Dec '05 22:48
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    No; Yes, when doing so is irrelevant to the topic discussed (which it always is).

    No; Yes, when doing so is irrelevant to the topic discussed (which it always is).

    Thanks for your time!
    Which begs the question - what do you feel is destructive to the heart of these forums then??
  6. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    11 Dec '05 22:50
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Which begs the question - what do you feel is destructive to the heart of these forums then??
    Sorry, I just saw that you addressed this.

    So, we are to conclude that it's okay to be rude to people but not okay to pull someone up about being rude?
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    11 Dec '05 22:50
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Which begs the question - what do you feel is destructive to the heart of these forums then??
    From the "Suicide on 9/11 - Damned?" thread:

    No, Ivanhoe, you are committing a logical fallacy; people's intentions are not relevant to their argument. Either their argument can be met by rational argument in return or it cannot; in either case, the argument itself is seperate and distinct from any possible motivation of the speaker. Do you know the name of the logical fallacy you are committing? HINT: You use the term incorrectly in these forums all the time.

    Application of the rule you are here creating would mean that every single thread in this and any other forum would ignore the actual topic and denigrate into an examination of the supposed "motives" of the debaters. This is exactly what you do in every thread you are in. You poison the intellectual well of every discussion by taking it off into your petty personal vendettas against certain posters. This is childish and immature.

    As someone who enjoys healthy intellectual debate between people of opposing viewpoints and regard even heated exchanges of ideas as a good thing, I resent your attempts to destroy the free exchange of ideas here by dragging every discussion down to attacks on people's supposed motives and tactics. A fire must protect its source and I think that your idiotic obession with certain other posters is destructive of the intellectual back and forth that is the heart of these forums for most people here. They and I don't care about your petty psychological problems with others, Ivanhoe; stay on the actual topics or STF up.
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    11 Dec '05 22:56
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Sorry, I just saw that you addressed this.

    So, we are to conclude that it's okay to be rude to people but not okay to pull someone up about being rude?
    Rude is to a certain extent in the eye of the beholder; someone who constantly avoids serious discussion by refusal to answer questions aimed at fleshing out their position is being just as rude in the context of an intellectual discussion as someone who calls them a "parrot" for doing so. In any event, where someone tries to deliberately take the discussion away from the issue being discussed to a tiresome litany of their charges against certain individuals they are commiting an Argument Ad Hominem; the personal character traits of someone making an argument has nothing to do with the validity of the argument.
  9. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    11 Dec '05 22:57
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    From the "Suicide on 9/11 - Damned?" thread:

    No, Ivanhoe, you are committing a logical fallacy; people's intentions are not relevant to their argument. Either their argument can be met by rational argument in return or it cannot; in either case, the argument itself is seperate and distinct from any possible motivation of the speaker. Do you k ...[text shortened]... out your petty psychological problems with others, Ivanhoe; stay on the actual topics or STF up.
    Well, yeah, I'd agree that simply allowing every discussion to degenerate into a mud slinging comp isn't really what the forums are for. Let's try all and be nice and polite though - noone is without merit, and we all deserve a bit of respect (when we earn it by showing it to other that is!).
  10. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23701
    11 Dec '05 23:19
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    No; Yes, when doing so is irrelevant to the topic discussed (which it always is).

    No; Yes, when doing so is irrelevant to the topic discussed (which it always is).

    Thanks for your time!
    So somebody can go on with his insulting sprees and you claim this is not destructive to his intellectual integrity.

    Furthermore you claim that applying manipulative techniques is not destructive to one's intellectual integrity.

    Am I correct ?
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    11 Dec '05 23:22
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    So somebody can go on with his insulting sprees and you claim this is not destructive to his intellectual integrity.

    Furthermore you claim that applying manipulative techniques is not destructive to one's intellectual integrity.

    Am I correct ?
    Define your terms as DrScribbles asked you to and we'll see.
  12. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23701
    11 Dec '05 23:231 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    From the "Suicide on 9/11 - Damned?" thread:

    No, Ivanhoe, you are committing a logical fallacy; people's intentions are not relevant to their argument. Either their argument can be met by rational argument in return or it cannot; in either case, the argument itself is seperate and distinct from any possible motivation of the speaker. Do you k ...[text shortened]... out your petty psychological problems with others, Ivanhoe; stay on the actual topics or STF up.
    I reacted to these remrks in the other thread but I will repost my answers here in this thread:

    Marauder: "No, Ivanhoe, you are committing a logical fallacy; people's intentions are not relevant to their argument."

    It all depends. What is your argument in this (Suicide on 9/11 - Damned?)thread ? ... and what is your accompanying reasoning ?


    Marauder: "Application of the rule you are here creating would mean that every single thread in this and any other forum would ignore the actual topic and denigrate into an examination of the supposed "motives" of the debaters."

    I am not creating any rule. I am criticising the method's of debate you and Nemesio are using in this thread. They can, of course, be linked with the debater's motives, but that is not my first concern.

    Marauder: "HINT: You use the term incorrectly in these forums all the time."

    ..... all the time ...... Which term do I use incorrectly "all the time" in these forums ? The term "intention" or the term "motive" or the term "hint"?


    marauder: "This is exactly what you do in every thread you are in.

    Again an unsubstantiated and silly accusation. I criticise your and in this thread Nemesio's debating techniques, but certainly not everyone's debating techniques and certainly not in "every" thread I am in.
  13. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23701
    11 Dec '05 23:31
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    No; Yes, when doing so is irrelevant to the topic discussed (which it always is).

    No; Yes, when doing so is irrelevant to the topic discussed (which it always is).

    Thanks for your time!
    marauder: No; Yes, when doing so is irrelevant to the topic discussed (which it always is).

    No; Yes, when doing so is irrelevant to the topic discussed (which it always is).



    Manipulative debating technique:

    "Marauder, why don't you stop beating your wife ?"

    Now marauder, if your above answers and remarks are correct you cannot (or are not allowed to, according to your remarks) adress this instance of manipulative debating. According to you adressing this is "off topic". Right ?
  14. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23701
    11 Dec '05 23:331 edit
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Destructive to .... the "intellectual heart of these forums" (the term's author is No1marauder).

    Now that is a good point, marauder. The issue of the "intellectual heart of these forums" and what is destructive to this heart.

    Two questions I would like you to adress very openly and freely about this issue you raise:

    - Do you think insulting p ...[text shortened]... ng destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums"

    What's your answer, Marauder ?
    Of course I can add the following interesting question:

    - Do you think bullying is destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums" or is adressing bullying destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums"

    What's your answer, Marauder ?



    You forgot to answer this important question.
  15. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23701
    11 Dec '05 23:341 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Define your terms as DrScribbles asked you to and we'll see.
    Above I gave an example of a Manipulative Debating Technique:
Back to Top