NationStates Jolt Archive

I've just joined this forum, and I've been reading through some threads, and the one thing that I've noticed to be consistant is a lack of knowledge on the whole. Throughout the threads in this General board, I've found that a large part of the information and ideals which are presented are completely without logic, example, or tangible proof. When many make a statement on here, they make it because it's the party line, and they have put no thought into their statements.

"Some people say that values are subjective, but they're just repeating words that someone else has said." -Edgar Winter

Winter has it right because people do say things without even thinking about it because it's spoonfed wisdom--they hear it, accept it, and parrot it.

"Don't believe anything you hear even if I say it's true. Prove it to yourself, and then you can believe it." -Buddha

We should challenge the thoughts and customs of our civilization which span across nationality, religion, and political alignment, and we should all reconsider the most fundamental ideas of our world and see if they are true. If we do not do so, we may continue to think that the world is flat (transcribe that to a 'fact' that we know and will be debunked in the future). The place for us to challenge these thoughts is not by slinging words or insults or hastily thrown together statements without any shred of reasoning; we should challenge these thoughts internally so that we may form reasonable statements and then share them with our fellows.

Now, here comes the statement which will most likely start a flame war but is true: being a liberal has recently become a fad, and most of the kiddies who become liberals to fit in with their friends read a few websites to memorize some statements and beliefs and declare themselves extreme liberals, and the bulk of people posting to this forum are liberal (many, I would dare say, are nearing the extreme left zone). There are a few people who claim to be liberal (they tend to be close to the center of the political spectrum) and have actually thought out what they believe, and that is good, but the majority have not, and they post curt, party-line responses to valid arguments--it's like a written form of The O'Reilly Factor except the extreme left.

Now, it's time for the conservatives to take a beating and a blessing. The far-right conservatives have a tendency (here and abroad) to tote the party line and to have their morality spoonfed to them by their religion of choice. They will completely deny the possibility that they could be incorrect, their human clergymen could be incorrect in their interpretations, and they state that being liberal is unpatriotic. However, some of the conservatives (near the center of the spectrum) that post here have a lot of guts because they're stepping right into the lion's den while being the minority--the chances of them being armed with knowledge and reason is much higher because their beliefs won't be accepted by the majority just because of their political affiliation.

You should have noticed something by now--the people in the center of the political spectrum tend to be the ones who can make a valid argument and not personally attack and belittle people because of an inability to discuss a topic without being argumentative and illogical. The liberals say that conservatives close their eyes to passion; the conservatives say that liberals close their eyes to reality; I say that both close their eyes to the truth. No one who has done any sort of thinking for themselves (while not regarding the petty whining of the left and right because you're not following with them) is completely to the left or to the right. The reason people claim to be liberal or conservative is so that they can have a sense of belonging, and you need that sense of belonging if you're unsure of what you're repeating. I mean--if everyone else thinks it's correct, then it must be correct (flat earth, flat earch). You have to be pretty brave to make your own decisions about what you believe because both parties will brand you as being too much like the other, but you have the peace of mind in knowing that you're not following like a blind sheep.

Each of you, honestly reconsider what you believe without worrying about if you're going right or left because right and left don't even matter. Correct and incorrect is what matters. If you're brave enough, shed the false security of being connected with the left or right and belive what you believe because you honestly believe it to be true, and reconsider everything which you believe to be true with a fresh and open mind no matter how convinced you are of its solid nature. I'm sure most of you have seen the political compass ( http://www.politicalcompass.org )--screw their left, right, up, down, X, and Y! Find the Z axis and place yourself firmly onto it and away from the X and Y.

The main reason for this post is to get you all to consider what you write very carefully and try to clean up this board's rampant idiocy. If we all act in a calm, kind manner and provide what examples, logical progression (you have to type it out so people can follow for it to count), and solid proof we can to back up our statements, the overall experience of the forum will be better, and people who see the forum will say "Now that's a forum with with debate on it" rather than "Wow, what a collection of 'tards."

Of all of these things I have said, consider them for yourself, try them, and see if it is true for yourself before you believe a word of it.

http://life.short.be (a website where I do rants such as this when I can)

Note:
I'm expecting a fair amount of flames and posts like the ones I have described. Share with me in the irony if you see people hanging themselves in the following way:
1) Saying I'm a n00b and should shut up because I don't know anything.
2) Scimming my post and taking things out of context (you should always read the first post in whole)
3) Defending themselves by saying that they have considered what they believe (subconsciously, they know that they have not, so they feel like the above statements are a direct attack on them even though I've stated no specific person)
4) Throwing personal insults at either me or someone who responds to this post because they disagree and have nothing to back it up
5) Posting an extremely short reply with something insubstantial said and generally having to do with my mother's sexual orientation and how that applies to my being wrong
6) [ This is an umbrella over all stupidity which will most likely ensue but that I don't want to take the time to type out more of ]

As for MY examples for this post, check former threads and, most likely, the replies to follow this post.

Good job, Sanctimonious. I think you have really put your finger on the issue here. Unfortunately, you and I both know that idiocy is ever present. In all likelihood, those whom you have just described are just the kind of people who will simply ignore this post. However, I congratulate you for putting the issue out there, and perhaps there are some who will listen to reason.

Lol and strangely silent (or they are composing REALLY long replies lol)

Anyways I want to thank you for pointing out the reality as I see it (not necessarily for the board but generally the issues with each political parties)

I wont make a lengthy reply because I mostly agree with you … and it is hard being in the middle … we tend to get it from both sides :)

I'm a long winded bastard and should have made the post easier for you to read.

My apologies,
Nels

I will agree that much that is said here is not considered, merely cut and pasted. However, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar....

...and if you truly consider this board to be rampantly idiotic, I wonder why it is that you choose to post here as you clearly have a forum you consider NOT rampantly idiotic to post in?

This is not a request for you to "shut up" or "go away", merely a question about why you're here if you dislike it so.

My problem is I research a complete topic as one should in a debate, in this case debating homosexuality, and people continually ignore the posts I made. They go back to the same verses that have already been discussed, recite the same thing, and do not even bother responding to the in-depth study. They have a complete unwillingness to read or even say, "Well I will read into it." They just keep reciting the same lines, and not even showing any signs of wilingness to at least consider a different view on the matter.

I will agree that much that is said here is not considered, merely cut and pasted. However, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar....

...and if you truly consider this board to be rampantly idiotic, I wonder why it is that you choose to post here as you clearly have a forum you consider NOT rampantly idiotic to post in?

This is not a request for you to "shut up" or "go away", merely a question about why you're here if you dislike it so.

I could get a nice butt-polish from my irl friends because we tend to agree on what few things we post on that forum (most of our disagreements are in real conversations where we discuss what we have to say), or I can step into the middle of zombie-land with a fist fulla boomstick and start firing away at what I can before I, myself, get shot down (it will happen eventually, I'm sure).

Most people here don't like debating, they like flaming.

Actually, to be honest, I've found that a lot of people are at the center of the political spectrum because they're afraid of taking a position that might be wrong. This isn't true of all centrists, perhaps it's just the ones that I know.

I'm non-partisan myself.

One problem I notice is that, when in a democracy, when you stick to personal beliefs that no large groups agree with then your opinion may not make a change. I think that's another reason why many don't like to be non-partisan.

Actually, to be honest, I've found that a lot of people are at the center of the political spectrum because they're afraid of taking a position that might be wrong. This isn't true of all centrists, perhaps it's just the ones that I know.

You guys are trying to prove me wrong about my post by being so polite and such ;) (It's good that you do so though)

What I've found, being politically and religiously in the same area, is that both sides are rather irate with me. I'm a christian, but I'm quite non-orthodox, and I don't follow any offchute of the religion because I think most of them are archaic in their interpretation. For this reason, I am shunned by christians, and I'm shunned by atheists for having a religion at all (I tend to get along with agnostics best). For my political situation, my conservative parents heartily dislike what I believe(but they respect it) and my extreme-left associates dislike what I believe even more (with varying respect).

I realize what you're saying though, and I believe you're fully correct. I know people who will claim they believe one thing at one time and then change what they believe at the slightest suggestion to simply avoid conflict; they are the cowards that you speak of, and they do exist. I don't know about calling them centrists, though--sycophants might be a better term. ;)

Most people here don't like debating, they like flaming.
Since it tends to be easier and more effective. :rolleyes:

I also find that many people judge your harshly because your beliefs are unlike theirs.

I'm non-partisan myself.

One problem I notice is that, when in a democracy, when you stick to personal beliefs that no large groups agree with then your opinion may not make a change. I think that's another reason why many don't like to be non-partisan.

I believe that it's the opposite unless I have read what you stated incorrectly. When you believe what the mass-group believes, you are not likely to evolve in your belief/opinion. It's people who think independently from what the mass thinks that innovate and cause the mass to change (individuals effect[verb form of effect--it's correct] great change in the mass society like Da Vinci should have if he was not supressed).

If I just said what you said/wanted to say, then I'm reiterating, but if it's not what you said, that's my take on it.

Most people here don't like debating, they like flaming.

|= /_ @ /\/\ 1 /\/ 9 ?

101 \/\/7|= ?

|= /_ @ /\/\ 1 /\/ 9 |2 [ 0 0 /_

j00 |2 /\/008 4 3\/|2

(comedy)

I don't need to read more than teh first paragraph to know what you are talkign about and honestly that is all I read. lol

What you are experiencing is real life on any message board. Unless maybe it is a messageboard on a certain topic being used only by people who are experts on that topic.

I wouldn't generalize everyone here so easily because there are some flamers... some trolls, some educated and some not so much. Many of us are ignorant because we went to poor public schools in the US and others of us have just been raised under completely liberal or conservatives families that don't give you a chance to form yoru own opinions and respect that you may not agree with them. Then there are a lot of kids on here that only know what they saw on FOX news or Farenheit 9/11. It could be a million things mixed. EVERYONE has a limited viewpoint on everything. Noone knows everything about anything.

I think NS is a great place because I may hold strong opinions about some things I dont fully understand but I try to keep an open mind (Granted that isnt always the case as I love to be right, even when I don't know what I am talkign about). And alot of people from around the world hold a lot of pieces of knowledge that I enjoy learning. It really does help me see the world through more facets of this gem we call reality.

You guys are trying to prove me wrong about my post by being so polite and such ;) (It's good that you do so though)

What I've found, being politically and religiously in the same area, is that both sides are rather irate with me. I'm a christian, but I'm quite non-orthodox, and I don't follow any offchute of the religion because I think most of them are archaic in their interpretation. For this reason, I am shunned by christians, and I'm shunned by atheists for having a religion at all (I tend to get along with agnostics best). For my political situation, my conservative parents heartily dislike what I believe(but they respect it) and my extreme-left associates dislike what I believe even more (with varying respect).

I realize what you're saying though, and I believe you're fully correct. I know people who will claim they believe one thing at one time and then change what they believe at the slightest suggestion to simply avoid conflict; they are the cowards that you speak of, and they do exist. I don't know about calling them centrists, though--sycophants might be a better term. ;)

As someone who leans to the far left, I fully support your unorthodox Christianity. And you do have a point, I don't think it's fair to shun someone if they agree with you.

I believe that it's the opposite unless I have read what you stated incorrectly. When you believe what the mass-group believes, you are not likely to evolve in your belief/opinion. It's people who think independently from what the mass thinks that innovate and cause the mass to change (individuals effect[verb form of effect--it's correct] great change in the mass society like Da Vinci should have if he was not supressed).

If I just said what you said/wanted to say, then I'm reiterating, but if it's not what you said, that's my take on it.

Yes I understand that change comes but it doesn't come often when you consider how many people have minority beliefs.

If we do not do so, we may continue to think that the world is flat (transcribe that to a 'fact' that we know and will be debunked in the future).

First warning. Please, please, please, would people stop perpetuating the myth that the people of the Middle Ages believed the world was flat? If I have to run through the whole Eratosthenes/Cosmo/Bede/Irving Washington malarky again I'm going to start virtually punching people that trot it out every couple of weeks. I am aware that you are using it metaphorically, but there is the implication that you do actually believe the commonly held misperceptions about the "flat earth".



You should have noticed something by now--the people in the center of the political spectrum tend to be the ones who can make a valid argument and not personally attack and belittle people because of an inability to discuss a topic without being argumentative and illogical.

In my experience the people who are able to argue logically are not defined by political beliefs, but rather by whether they have actually studied logic at any point in their life... of course, those who have done so are also generally aware of the hidden assumptions that underpin logic and the difficulties of determining if logical systems do actually map onto the 'real' world, and so see it more as a rhetorical device rather than a way of actually structuring their argument.


I mean--if everyone else thinks it's correct, then it must be correct (flat earth, flat earch).

Second warning.

I suspect you are being too harsh in your judgements. One of the things that I have noticed is that some of my well thought out opinions (which are not all of my opinions) are based on so many other pre-existing opinions that the process of explaining how I came to them is near impossible.

Im no drugged out commie, my people are crushed under an oppresive regime.

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

I reckon society could do with a firmer hand, specifically one holding a baton.

In my experience the people who are able to argue logically are not defined by political beliefs, but rather by whether they have actually studied logic at any point in their life... of course, those who have done so are also generally aware of the hidden assumptions that underpin logic and the difficulties of determining if logical systems do actually map onto the 'real' world, and so see it more as a rhetorical device rather than a way of actually structuring their argument.

Good point. I notice that you used 'generally' to qualify your statement. Who would be exceptions to the rule (so to speak) that people who have studied logic are aware of the hidden assumptions that underpin logic?

I don't need to read more than teh first paragraph to know what you are talkign about and honestly that is all I read. lol

What you are experiencing is real life on any message board. Unless maybe it is a messageboard on a certain topic being used only by people who are experts on that topic.

I wouldn't generalize everyone here so easily because there are some flamers... some trolls, some educated and some not so much. Many of us are ignorant because we went to poor public schools in the US and others of us have just been raised under completely liberal or conservatives families that don't give you a chance to form yoru own opinions and respect that you may not agree with them. Then there are a lot of kids on here that only know what they saw on FOX news or Farenheit 9/11. It could be a million things mixed. EVERYONE has a limited viewpoint on everything. Noone knows everything about anything.

I think NS is a great place because I may hold strong opinions about some things I dont fully understand but I try to keep an open mind (Granted that isnt always the case as I love to be right, even when I don't know what I am talkign about). And alot of people from around the world hold a lot of pieces of knowledge that I enjoy learning. It really does help me see the world through more facets of this gem we call reality.

As for the first paragraph, you can thank my English teacher for that because she instilled the tendency to make the first paragraph of any essay-like material to be the expository, umbrella-statement under which the rest of the text falls. From your statements, I infer that you have not read the rest of the post, so please do read it if you have not so that we may better communicate.

Real life on a message board? I disagree with that statement. People become bold when they are behind a computer, and they're more likely to hold on to their ideas if they can just click away and pretend like they never saw what they've just read. It is my experience that people who talk to me face-to-face are more likely to agree with me whether it's my physical stature which intimidates them, the fact that they have to look me in the eye and consider what I have to say and that frightens them into believing something which they normally wouldn't (not a good thing, I think), or some other such circumstance. Forums provide a good place for you to post what you want to say and look away from what others have to criticize it. If you have to face someone and present your ideas, running away will not have the same effect by any means.

Now, for the generalization. The generalization is because I can't pick out all the people (I don't wish to insult them by doing so either--that would be counter-productive) and post them here, but from what I had seen from scanning some threads is that the majority of posts are the fluff I described while a few people have what you might call "gem" posts which have real content.

In relation to schooling, I didn't attend school until I was in the middle of the 6th grade (I was homeschooled, but my mom gave up on me the second day because I was dense) and I attended a small-town US school in Arkansas(track record for one of the absolute worst education systems), and my parents are ultra-conservative; they did not accept anything about me until now because I'm moving out and they're getting older and realizing that ultra-conservative isn't so good. These 'kids'(I've met adults too) who only know what they see on Fox News and/or F 9/11 have access to the internet, so they they the grandest opportunity in the history of mankind to self-educate. In self-educating, you can expand your view and give the best opportunity to make a valid argument. Ignorance, however, is not an excuse for flaming or making wild accusations without proof because those people have the ability to find proof and eliminate their ignorance. Self-education is the responsibility of the individual, however.

It's good that you enjoy this forum as I'm enjoying it (you can enjoy something which is imperfect). Gathering the views of other people is what this is all about, but we can gather a clearer understanding of their views if the communication is educated and civil.

Thanks for your post

Good point. I notice that you used 'generally' to qualify your statement. Who would be exceptions to the rule (so to speak) that people who have studied logic are aware of the hidden assumptions that underpin logic?


It was a comment applying to the world in general, rather than just the world of General. An example of one of those who obviously had some degree of formal education in logic, but had completely failed to grasp the problem with the assumption that it can be mapped congruently onto the 'real' world was the now departed and deleted Cartese (amongst his other glaring logical errors and fallacies).

All logic is is a system for formalising the structure of arguments, it tells us nothing about how we should construct the content of the statements that we feed into it, nor do we know for certain that because logic tells us that statements X, Y & Z lead to conclusion A, A must actually be the case in the 'real' world.

First warning. Please, please, please, would people stop perpetuating the myth that the people of the Middle Ages believed the world was flat? If I have to run through the whole Eratosthenes/Cosmo/Bede/Irving Washington malarky again I'm going to start virtually punching people that trot it out every couple of weeks. I am aware that you are using it metaphorically, but there is the implication that you do actually believe the commonly held misperceptions about the "flat earth".

...

In my experience the people who are able to argue logically are not defined by political beliefs, but rather by whether they have actually studied logic at any point in their life... of course, those who have done so are also generally aware of the hidden assumptions that underpin logic and the difficulties of determining if logical systems do actually map onto the 'real' world, and so see it more as a rhetorical device rather than a way of actually structuring their argument.

...


Second warning.


I don't believe I mentioned the middle ages specifically in the world-is-flat statement. If you're interested in sending me your 'thing' anyway, I'd be happy to read it (leetninjamaster@hotmail.com). However, it is very true that in our history, man believed the world to be flat (tales of going off the edge of the Earth). It's a very logical assumption to make because the "downhill" gradient is nearly impossible to see unless you know what you're looking for. It's like the Earth going around the sun rather than the other way around--"The Church" denied the validity of Copernicus' theory.

I found your warnings to be insulting, and please forgive me for my rudeness, but it's like the things which I described as being counter-productive. I know you meant them in good humor, but they had a sharp edge to them (especially seeing how many posts you had and how you're an established member).

I agree with your second statement--that's why I included the Z-axis statement because it shows no political association. The logic I speak of is very simple: statement 1 -> example, reason, whatever -> erego, I believe statement 1; statement 2...and so forth. Even if the logic is faulty in essence, it at least explains how they reached their conclusion rather than a simple "you're wrong--I have my reasons." If you put your logic, faulty or not, out for display, then it can be picked apart and you can receive help with it.

Thanks for your post

I suspect you are being too harsh in your judgements. One of the things that I have noticed is that some of my well thought out opinions (which are not all of my opinions) are based on so many other pre-existing opinions that the process of explaining how I came to them is near impossible.

But we must at least do our best to give a general idea of how we arrived at a conclusion. Any attempt to clarify why you believe something is better than no attempt at all.

Im no drugged out commie, my people are crushed under an oppresive regime.

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

I reckon society could do with a firmer hand, specifically one holding a baton.

"Civil disobediance is still disobediance" - Maddox

Popped into my head for some unknown reason when I read your statement.

If you're interested in sending me your 'thing' anyway, I'd be happy to read it (leetninjamaster@hotmail.com). However, it is very true that in our history, man believed the world to be flat (tales of going off the edge of the Earth).




Okay here we go: quick run through time: Eratosthenes calculated the size of the Earth's sphere in 230BC or therabouts and gave a figure of 39350 km (our modern equatorial measurement is 40,008 km). This he achieved by claculations based on shadows cast in a wellshaft at noon. Even before he made these measurements there is seen a widespread acknowledgement that the Earth was not a flat plane - we have documented evidence of this going back to the 6th century BC and Pythagoras. The idea of a spherical Earth was widely accepted in the Western World until a school lead by the monk Cosmas (sorry, I mangled the name in my initial post), author of the Topographica Christiana, claimed that the world was an inclined (not flat) rectangular plane. This was in the 6th Century, but his ideas received little acceptance and was rejected by the Church. By the 7th century the Venerable Bede is again describing the world as a sphere. We should bear in mind that throughout this period, and up into the early Renaissance the scientific dogma (endorsed by the Church) of the Western World remained Aristotle, who also described a cosmology centred on a spherical Earth.

(As a sidenote - the Arab world also had access to Aristotle's cosmological writings, and his beliefs concerning a spherical Earth were also accepted there)

It's a very logical assumption to make because the "downhill" gradient is nearly impossible to see unless you know what you're looking for.

As for your claims that the curvature of the Earth is not easily noticeable unless you are already primed with the belief in a spherical planet, it was a well known phenomenon amongst sailors throughout history (and indeed canal-boatmen) that the tops of vessels in the distance were apparent long before the waterline was visible, and this caused them no confusion, as they believed the Earth to be spherical. This is also why lookouts and crow's nests were located at the tops of masts of ships - not because of problems with seeing over small things close by the ship, but because then the curvature of the Earth could be used to the navigator's advantage.

It is believed that the popular myth of people believing in a flat earth can be traced back to Washington Irving and his biography of Christopher Columbus punblished in 1828.

You can accuse me of focusing excessively on the European tradition here, but it is that to which people normally refer when they make claims of people in history believing in a flat Earth. Other cultures certainly throughout the ages have had many different ideas of the shape of the world, be they concave or convex, but I have yet to be pointed to an authoritative reference to a widespread belief in a flat Earth.

I apologise for any offense that you may have taken with myt "warnings", but this is a particular hobby horse of mine, and I found it ironic that you were bemoaning the lack of openness to debate borught on by politcal mythologies, whilst still promulgating historical myths unbacked by facts.

(especially seeing how many posts you had and how you're an established member).

I am sure you are familiar with the expression "empty barrels make the most noise"...

I agree with your second statement--that's why I included the Z-axis statement because it shows no political association.

Hmm. The problem here is that Z-axis is at 90 degrees to the other 2 axes, yes? and so even if one is at some point along it (even at its zero point) one is still aligned somehwere along the two axes that Political Compass uses. You also haven't specified what the determining factor should be for the Z-axis - what does it measure? Environmental concern? Religious conviction? Shoesize? I see what you are saying, but don't really feel you have expanded on it sufficiently to explain.


(Put aside any sense of offense you may receive from any content in this post: such is unintentional.)

But we must at least do our best to give a general idea of how we arrived at a conclusion. Any attempt to clarify why you believe something is better than no attempt at all.
Why, if all that is requested is my final opinion? Nonetheless, I have done so, only to have people fail to accept/consider the positions underlying the opinions. This can get to the point of reducio ad absurdium, where one is soon justifying one's phenomenolgy.

This is what I consider the more common problem with this sort board, the failure to understand that others may not accept the same underlying positions (and fequently defintions) that you do.

This can get to the point of reducio ad absurdium, where one is soon justifying one's phenomenolgy.


I don't think we have actually had a 'phenomonology' thread on Nation States yet. Time to see if there remains anyhting of Husserl in the old grey cells? How do we disguise it as a Bush/Kerry thread in order to lure the unsuspecting into it?

I don't think we have actually had a 'phenomonology' thread on Nation States yet. Time to see if there remains anyhting of Husserl in the old grey cells? How do we disguise it as a Bush/Kerry thread in order to lure the unsuspecting into it?how about calling it "Do you believe Iraq really had WMDs" and then going into a question about whether Iraq exists or only the concept of Iraq and what each means.

how about calling it "Do you believe Iraq really had WMDs" and then going into a question about whether Iraq exists or only the concept of Iraq and what each means.

That way madness lies.


(But, I'll admit I did laugh).

Here is the problems you encounter when you try to debate anything controversial in an internet forum:

- There will be flamers who only throw insult.
- The will be extremist of both side who will spew the party line without listening.
- There will be young persosn with no education as to how to debate correctly.

Those things will discourage some of the better experience debaters and they will leave. Given that, and the number of poster on NationStates, it is a wonder there is still some debate still going on...
And having been to many other forums, I find here no worse than other places.

Good essay,though.

It was a comment applying to the world in general, rather than just the world of General. An example of one of those who obviously had some degree of formal education in logic, but had completely failed to grasp the problem with the assumption that it can be mapped congruently onto the 'real' world was the now departed and deleted Cartese (amongst his other glaring logical errors and fallacies).

I wondered if that was who you were thinking of. He immediately came to mind when I read your post. He simply failed to take logic to it's ummm...logical conclusion, in my opinion. I kinda felt sorry for him, actually. For all his intelligence and knowledge, he was missing the one crucial fact that he really needed to achieve his apparent goal of being completely logical; that none of us can be sure we know a damn bit of anything, and stating that we do is a bit silly at best if one's goal is to be completely logical.
Secondly, I don't think he realized that logic has limitations, and that those limitations should probably be taken into account when using it.

All logic is is a system for formalising the structure of arguments, it tells us nothing about how we should construct the content of the statements that we feed into it, nor do we know for certain that because logic tells us that statements X, Y & Z lead to conclusion A, A must actually be the case in the 'real' world.

Yeah. I learned that about a year and a half ago in one of the lectures in my Introduction to Logic class. Maybe Cartese missed that lecture or something, who knows. At least he provided some of the best entertainment that I've ever seen in the General Forum, and gave me something to think about for more than two seconds, as well as someone to play with.

Well you hit the nail on the head with certain kids being liberal just to be trendy. IN fact, I think that's a fairly old tradition. And NS is primarily young people. I think people are often inclined to start out with liberal views in response to the various authorities and youthful rebelliousness and then later, as reason and reality set in, become more centrist or conservative. Plus there's the similar cliche of a preppy conservative kid going to college and becoming more liberal. The center is where the pendulum usually stops swinging, unless you're a real swinger.

I kinda felt sorry for him, actually.

I think I stopped feeling anything positive whatsoever about him when he refused to retract his comment labeling contemporary Native Americans as 'Savages'.

At least he provided some of the best entertainment that I've ever seen in the General Forum, and gave me something to think about for more than two seconds, as well as someone to play with.

Oh, I got great entertainment out of his logical theses (I never did much debating with him at any length in any of the other threads), and certainly found them stimulating. Their lack of clarity didn't help make them easy to follow, and the fact that they depended on equivocation as central mechanisms wasn't helpful either, but that just made them more of a challenge to understand. He did take on a couple of my objections and rewrote his thesis on the basis of them twice, but I just didn't seem to be able to get him to see the central flaw. It got to the point where I was banging my head against a virtual wall as he missed the distinctions between "true", "valid" and "exists" time and time again.

I think I stopped feeling anything positive whatsoever about him when he refused to retract his comment labeling contemporary Native Americans as 'Savages'.

Positive? He would have hated that I felt sorry for him. I didn't get why he refused to retract his 'savages' comment either. It would seem fairly obvious that the definition of 'savages' is largely dependent on what one values and that it has no objective meaning and therefore is not a useful label except as a tool for the less than stellar debater to insult his opponent and divert attention away from the real argument.

Oh, I got great entertainment out of his logical theses (I never debating with him at any length in any of the other threads), and certainly found them stimulating. Their lack of clarity didn't help make them easy to follow, and the fact that they depended on equivocation as central mechanisms wasn't helpful either, but that just made them more of a challenge to understand. He did take on a couple of my objections and rewrote his thesis on the basis of them twice, but I just didn't seem to be able to get him to see the central flaw. It got to the point where I was banging my head against a virtual wall as he missed the distinctions between "true", "valid" and "exists" time and time again.

I knew he saw "true" and "exists" as the same thing, but I don't recall "valid" being confused with them. I particularly disapproved of his use of Boolean Logic as his preferred form in that the whole basis of Boolean Logic is the same as the basis of Western cultural thought, a heirarchical oppositional binary. Since I long ago decided that the basis of Western cultural thought was incorrect as a model for how that world works, you can see why I might not be inclined to give much credence to Boolean Logic as an appropriate form to use when analysing real-world systems. His definition of paradox as false was therefore quite suspect and he failed to prove anything to me based on that fact alone. The fact that any inconsistencies that arose were assumed to be the fault of something outside the system concerned me too. Inconsistencies could be the fault of the system, the subject of analysis, or something else entirely.

Edited for quote function error.

I knew he saw "true" and "exists" as the same thing, but I don't recall "valid" being confused with them.

He kept on refering to logical operations as 'true' or 'false' rather than the statements that they were operating upon, yeah, even unto his last days. I did try and point out that "valid" and "invalid" was the correct terminology, but as I said, banging my head against a virtual wall. To say this lead to some confusion is to understate the matter.


I particularly disapproved of his use of Boolean Logic as his preferred form in that the whole basis of Boolean Logic is the same as the basis of Western cultural thought, a heirarchical oppositional binary.


Ah, the law of the excluded middle & the law of non-contradiction. Some of the assumptions underpinning logic that I was refering to above.

His definition of paradox as false was therefore quite suspect and he failed to prove anything to me based on that fact alone.

I am somewhat relieved that I no longer remember that torturous piece of reasoning in sufficient detail to discuss it, but it basically came down to the law of non-contradiction. I was happy enough to accept that, but the steps he took to reach his contradiction were eccentric and highly dubious to say the least.

But, hey, we're still talking about him 9 (?) months later...

OMG NooB :D

Seriously though, I think the problems you highlighted are more indictive of internet forums as a whole, rather then Nationstates specifically. A friend of mine has a theory that every internet forum has a lifespan of at most two years before it degenerates into finding different ways to tell NooBs that they suXXor. While cynical, I think it has some validity. Ironically I think the forums that best avoid it tend to be those with a highly limited range of viewpoints. Essentially if people agree in advance that George Bush is best for America or Jesus was the son of God or that there is a class struggle or that Linux is better then Microsoft Windows or that giant lizards rule the world or whatever, then it avoids the testing of each others core viewpoints that you get on forums like this.

The one thing I would take issue with is your description of the liberals on here as "far left". I think that's a particuarly culturally influenced viewpoint on your part. Although it could just be, as a genuine member of the extreme left, I'm just protecting my position on here. ;)

I'd question Bodies Without Organs views that academic training in logic is automatically useful as well. I don't want to write it off completly, but I think it sometimes leads to an over stylised form of debate where form is more important then logic. I'm afraid I'm from the school of thought which says that views borne out of your own experience are generally more valid.

I'd question Bodies Without Organs views that academic training in logic is automatically useful as well. I don't want to write it off completly, but I think it sometimes leads to an over stylised form of debate where form is more important then logic. I'm afraid I'm from the school of thought which says that views borne out of your own experience are generally more valid.


I'll clarfiy if I can: I made the claim that it is generally those who have had some academic training in logic that are more aware of its limitations. I did not say that it was automatically useful, however, generally it is better to know about things (be they logic or coalmining) rather than not to know about them.

The next two responses depend upon the sense you intended the word "form" to have -

1. When argument becomes more based on form (assuming you mean the style of words used to present the argument) rather than logic we have entered the realm of rhetoric, which can only really be assessed on an artistic or aesthetic level.

2. Logic is pure form (using form as in "structure"), and nothing else, it is merely the structuring of sets of statements in relation to each other. It tells us nothing more than we but into it, although its conclusions may not be obvious before hand.

Once again: logic tells us little about the content of the statements we put into it, for that we must look elsewhere. Thus we can make equally logical arguments based on statements such as "the moon is made of green cheese", "the white race is superior to all other races" or "the banjo is a member of both the chordophone and the membranophone families of musical instruments".*

I certainly agree that views drawn from your own experiences are important, but logic can sometimes show us incompatibilities between the views which one individual holds.




(I will leave for the moment the question about whether logic and its formalisation of statement structures actually maps congruently to the real world, or if in the end it is a purely axiomatic, self-contained system with no inherent connectoion to the 'real' world - this was however one of the assumptions underpinning logic to which I was referring above, which those who have undergone academic training in logic are more likely to be familiar with than those that haven't.)

* False, false, true, by the way.

Plus there's the similar cliche of a preppy conservative kid going to college and becoming more liberal. The center is where the pendulum usually stops swinging, unless you're a real swinger.Heh, that's me. In high school I followed my parent's politics and didn't think about them much for myself; didn't particularly want to. Then I went to a conservative university in the middle of the bible belt, and started to think for myself. I ended up not liking a lot about our system and think we need a change pretty badly.

Anyway, I agree General is dumb most of the time, but it really isn't all that bad once you start treating it as a place to go and release some steam. I'm not liberal here because it's popular, I'm here as a liberal because it's enjoyable.

Hmm...I skimmed over most of the stuff in this thread, however, in case anyone missed it the first time, Sanctimonious's home page is http://life.short.be

I am also a very regular contributor at the webpage as I am the writer for the "News" section. While I am young, I would consider myself as being liberal simply because it is the trendy thing to do. I maybe liberal, but only slightly so. I'm fairly centrist with a slight lean I'd say. However, I've submitted three articles in the past week to the website and I've also posted my email there so you can send me hatemail. Additionally, arguments can develop in the forum. I welcome all to at least check out the website (and do so with the understanding that the site as a whole is only about a week old so we obviously have very few members). Anyways, there are also some non-political things our the website. There is a webcomic done by sanctimonious, as well as transcripts of interesting IM conversation (and if you have one, we welcome you to submit it--we edit out screen names and real names [except my name and Sanctimonious's name] so you don't get idiots spamming your messenger). Anyways, we're also open to suggestions for anything the site could do to improve and willing to accept and give credit for any contribution we feel is worthy. Again, that url is http://life.short.be/

See ya there. (You can also click my sig to visit the site.)

Ouch, that's a diss. Let's beat him up. Jk.

Ouch, that's a diss. Let's beat him up. Jk.
Beat who up?

Well you hit the nail on the head with certain kids being liberal just to be trendy. IN fact, I think that's a fairly old tradition. And NS is primarily young people. I think people are often inclined to start out with liberal views in response to the various authorities and youthful rebelliousness and then later, as reason and reality set in, become more centrist or conservative. Plus there's the similar cliche of a preppy conservative kid going to college and becoming more liberal. The center is where the pendulum usually stops swinging, unless you're a real swinger.


"If you are young and not liberal then you have no heart
If you are old and not conservative then you have no mind."

"If you are young and not liberal then you have no heart
If you are old and not conservative then you have no mind."

If you allow your age to dictate your politics, then you're not paying attention.

"Some people say that values are subjective, but they're just repeating words that someone else has said." -Edgar Winter
I like my own saying better. In fact it’s Crabbies first rule. Nothing is absolute.

Winter has it right because people do say things without even thinking about it because it's spoonfed wisdom--they hear it, accept it, and parrot it.
And the quotes you're using make you an exception? Anyways, believe you me when I say that many of my ideas do not come from mainstream ideologies.

"Don't believe anything you hear even if I say it's true. Prove it to yourself, and then you can believe it." -Buddha

People in general are lazy and don't want to take the time. But I usually just don't believe what anybody says anyways. Often I don't even bother finding out for myself though.

We should challenge the thoughts and customs of our civilization which span across nationality, religion, and political alignment, and we should all reconsider the most fundamental ideas of our world and see if they are true. If we do not do so, we may continue to think that the world is flat (transcribe that to a 'fact' that we know and will be debunked in the future). The place for us to challenge these thoughts is not by slinging words or insults or hastily thrown together statements without any shred of reasoning; we should challenge these thoughts internally so that we may form reasonable statements and then share them with our fellows.
Should should should should should. That just sounds a bit too preachy.

Now, here comes the statement which will most likely start a flame war but is true: being a liberal has recently become a fad, and most of the kiddies who become liberals to fit in with their friends read a few websites to memorize some statements and beliefs and declare themselves extreme liberals, and the bulk of people posting to this forum are liberal (many, I would dare say, are nearing the extreme left zone). There are a few people who claim to be liberal (they tend to be close to the center of the political spectrum) and have actually thought out what they believe, and that is good, but the majority have not, and they post curt, party-line responses to valid arguments--it's like a written form of The O'Reilly Factor except the extreme left.

Now, it's time for the conservatives to take a beating and a blessing. The far-right conservatives have a tendency (here and abroad) to tote the party line and to have their morality spoonfed to them by their religion of choice. They will completely deny the possibility that they could be incorrect, their human clergymen could be incorrect in their interpretations, and they state that being liberal is unpatriotic. However, some of the conservatives (near the center of the spectrum) that post here have a lot of guts because they're stepping right into the lion's den while being the minority--the chances of them being armed with knowledge and reason is much higher because their beliefs won't be accepted by the majority just because of their political affiliation.
The Libo-Cons are trying to kill me at the moment so I can't really say anything about them without fear of them bring down their wrath.

You should have noticed something by now--the people in the center of the political spectrum tend to be the ones who can make a valid argument and not personally attack and belittle people because of an inability to discuss a topic without being argumentative and illogical. The liberals say that conservatives close their eyes to passion; the conservatives say that liberals close their eyes to reality; I say that both close their eyes to the truth. No one who has done any sort of thinking for themselves (while not regarding the petty whining of the left and right because you're not following with them) is completely to the left or to the right. The reason people claim to be liberal or conservative is so that they can have a sense of belonging, and you need that sense of belonging if you're unsure of what you're repeating. I mean--if everyone else thinks it's correct, then it must be correct (flat earth, flat earch). You have to be pretty brave to make your own decisions about what you believe because both parties will brand you as being too much like the other, but you have the peace of mind in knowing that you're not following like a blind sheep.
I have noticed that it's not how far one is in any direction, but how extreme they are on a particular topic in question. The more extreme somebody is, the less likely they are to come up with a good argument.

I left for a few hours and we got WAY off track for this forum. The real point of all this was to be a shameless plug for our website, so visit it and join the forum so we can be cool and feel like there's some sort of meaning in our lives.

Go here:

http://life.short.be

You get a +3 roll to coolness any time you play any D&D game anywhere in the world after visiting the site, but you have to visit it each time there's an update to keep it.*

*Note: This is a lie attempting to get you to visit the site.

The real point of all this was to be a shameless plug for our website, so visit it and join the forum so we can be cool and feel like there's some sort of meaning in our lives.

Ah, so it wasn't actually to engage in the kind of debate which you claimed was lacking here, it was just self-promotion then? I answered the points you addressed in my post, and your response was then...

Ah, so it wasn't actually to engage in the kind of debate which you claimed was lacking here, it was just self-promotion then? I answered the points you addressed in my post, and your response was then...
My guess he'd probably respond to you a lot more than you'd like if you go here (http://life.short.be/)

Got about 3 lines into that before I had to quit.

Got about 3 lines into that before I had to quit.
I can give you a synopsis of it in two words:

Go here. (http://life.short.be)

My guess he'd probably respond to you a lot more than you'd like if you go here (http://life.short.be/)

I prefer not to visit websites which require pop-up windows in order to access them. Call me perverse.

I prefer not to visit websites which require pop-up windows in order to access them. Call me perverse.
Would you like an explanation as to why the pop-up window is used? Or would you just rather not visit the site?

Would you like an explanation as to why the pop-up window is used?

Enlighten me.

I am a stupid person, and I rarely think things through before I speak or type. (hmmm now what to say.....ok well just off the top of my head) I am always surprised to see that the first order of business within the intelectual community (even in a debate) is to intimidate the morons. ya know make everyone think twice before they type something stupid. I mean its not just their time they're wasting. Well on behalf of us stupid peeples We be thankx alot for ur sympathies. And hey while we are at it, lets be real pc ya know ...nothing offensive. I mean I'd hate for that virtual bit of code that makes up "me" on the internet to offend that virtual bit of code that makes up "you" on the internet. Ive seen alot of posts make fun of spelling, slang, and grammer. No swearing, no racist remarks........eventually you got no debate.
I read your post, I hope you read mine. I can tell you genuinely care about the things you say. I just want you to remember It is legal to be stupid. Its legal to be a bigot. Bad typing habits, poor spelling, and a lack of grammatical corectness are all legal. More importantly they are different types of people that need to learn to live together and debate together. When an orator looks for a specialized audience I'll assume that he is just testing his soapbox. This is not meant as a flame at you, Just a casual observation like your own. I see alot of wasted thread that alienates the very people that we need to come the closest too. Ya cant make dumb people smart by calling them stupid. What we need to do is accept and more importantly acknowledge the importance of diversified oppinions.....Can't we all just (virtually) get along.

p.s. Ya got sanctimonious right, but ya spelled potty wrong.

Enlighten me.
Well, we were having problems with the website looking fine in some resolutions and then in others it looked completely screwy, so the solution was to put it in a window that pops up and has a set size. However, if you don't want to surf the site because it is in a pop up window, that is completely understandable, but I'd like you to take my word that the main pop up is the only one and there are no advertisements at all on the site (if you don't count the links page)

Well, we were having problems with the website looking fine in some resolutions and then in others it looked completely screwy, so the solution was to put it in a window that pops up and has a set size.

In that case I would suggest simplifying the website design, rather than having an overly complex site which won't render properly and thus requires an even more complex solution in order to display.



However, if you don't want to surf the site because it is in a pop up window, that is completely understandable, but I'd like you to take my word that the main pop up is the only one and there are no advertisements at all on the site (if you don't count the links page)

My main browser is configured to reject all pop-up pages, and although I can change this setting, I generally chose not to.

I prefer not to visit websites which require pop-up windows in order to access them. Call me perverse.

I wanted to use frames for this page, and to keep it from being messed up with all the different resoultions, I did the best with what few skills I have. It doesn't have advertisement pop-ups at least, and the shameless plug's importance was a joke. However, I would like people to visit and it doesn't harm anyone if I add one more post to a short thread.

As for not responding to your post, someone else was using this computer, and I went to work out. Then I read your post and decided to not try to reply because it would start a mini-war that's off topic about something I didn't consider to be really important. I never mentioned the middle ages, so I don't want to argue with you like I had. Even if I had mentioned it, to niggle with a detail such as the middle ages and their belief of the curvature of the world is getting off topic because I used a readily available, wide-spread concept to relate what I was trying to say (right, wrong, or what--the message I had made was clear). In honesty, I was thinking of the vikings when I made that comment because I already know of all the romans, greeks, and so forth that conjectured, by sea travel and the sun, and the vikings did hold the belief of a flat world for a time. All of the early civilizations held a belief of the world being flat before they figured it out by the sun or sea or pure conjecture. I didn't want to go off on this again, so that's why I didn't post. Everything should be clear now.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk because I realize that you're trying to put forth effort on this topic, so please don't interpret what I have to say as being angry or any such thing.

In honesty, I was thinking of the vikings when I made that comment ... and the vikings did hold the belief of a flat world for a time.

Not to keep picking on this subject, but if you could point me to a site which talks about the Viking belief in a flat Earth, I would appreciate it, I have heard this claim before, but have seen no evidence to back it up.

My main browser is configured to reject all pop-up pages, and although I can change this setting, I generally chose not to.

Pop-ups are an ever-present force on the internet--from flash movies to movie files to extra information. Most good browsers allow for you to have a pop-up displayed if you have to click to make it appear, or they give you the option to hold ctrl or some such key to bypass the feature for a second.

The reason it's like that is because I wanted to be innovative in my design at least more-so than most pages. Most people say frames don't work, but it seems that I have made them work, and most people say that having a frame with a design around the content window won't work because of resolutions, but I found(in my n00bish way) a way for it to work across resolutions. I think it's pretty cool look'n, and I'm proud of it because I've done all the art for it(that's why it sucks).

Thanks for visiting the main page at least, though.

I'll throw some evidence at you :)

The vikings were very religious people (which is well known).

http://www.angelfire.com/realm/shades/vikings/az.htm

Hraesvelg ("corpse eater"): giant who sits at the edge of the world, overlooking Helheim
(I also recall someone/thing thrown off the edge of the earth during ragnarok into the abyss, but I am just giving what I had real handy)

As for other civilizations...(and also confirming what you said about the Middle Ages somewhat)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Flat_Earth

Danke,
Sanct

I'll throw some evidence at you :)

The vikings were very religious people (which is well known).
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/shades/vikings/az.htm


I remain unconvinced: these are the Viking legends, and it is unclear how literally they were actually interpreted by the Norsemen rather than viewed mythopoetically, but thanks anyhow.

Isn't Angelfire a host for people to make their own websites? Not that this disproves the evidence shown on the site cited (haha), but it does bring it's validity into question.

I remain unconvinced: these are the Viking legends, and it is unclear how literally they were actually interpreted by the Norsemen rather than viewed mythopoetically, but thanks anyhow.

It's generally well accepted that the vikings believed their religion as the christians believe theirs, the buddhists believe theirs, the islamics believe theirs, and so forth, and I concur with that acceptance because, with the information I have so far, it is fairly convincing that if you were raised with there only being one religious order and raised for your entire life to fight and die to reach valhalla (when they invaded England, for example--and the berserkers...who would be so fervent in their attacks unless they knew they were going to have an extra-special seat in valhalla for it?). I think the evidence is pretty clear from modern times and the historical events which have taken place.

Isn't Angelfire a host for people to make their own websites? Not that this disproves the evidence shown on the site cited (haha), but it does bring it's validity into question.

The site seems very well done, so I trust it. The information I've seen there I have seen in numerous different places, but the Angelfire page was the one I liked out of the google results.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/helheim.html

Apparently, they have nine worlds which have edges.

http://misc.bodaciousgoddess.com/norse/extras-bio3.htm

A list of the worlds with descriptions

I could list more, but there's no reason--you have access to google.

Their worlds are stacked and placed together, and for that to happen, they have to be flat. Even if EVERYONE didn't believe this, a large portion did for this religion to be kept alive when so many of them were dying to get into valhalla.

It's generally well accepted that the vikings believed their religion as the christians believe theirs...

However, it is entirely possible to be a Christian while not believing in the literal truth of many of the central stories in the Bible - you need not believe in an actual Adam and Eve and a garden of Eden, nor that Noah actually built an ark, or that God actually created the world in 6 blocks of work and one of rest. However, read metaphorically or allegorically these same stories, whilst not believed literally, shape the Christian view of the world. I am putting forward this opinion with regard to the Viking mythology that you linked to above. They may not have literally believed in the existence of the wolf Fenris, or that the jaws of the Midgard serpent would be held open by a warrior wearing boots made from all the cut off pieces of leather cast aside by all the cobblers throughout history, but still they believed them as allegorical or metaphorical tales of how the world was constructed. It is not necessarilly the case that they believed in the nine worlds of Asgard hanging from the tree of life as flat planes - indeed the differences between the worlds seems to be a mainly spiritual one, rather than actual geographical/cosmological ones.

Thus, I still favour viewing the Norse legends as mythopoetic explanations rather than as what they actually believed to be the case in the world.


(Note: somewhat jumbled, but it is getting late here.)

For further evidence of this kind of cultural distinction between the mythopoetic and the cosmological, one only needs to look at ancient Greece, which maintained its myths and legends of the underworld and the Gods on their mount Olympus even after the teachings of the philosophers describing a spherical world free from Gods.

However, it is entirely possible to be a Christian while not believing in the literal truth of many of the central stories in the Bible - you need not believe in an actual Adam and Eve and a garden of Eden, nor that Noah actually built an ark, or that God actually created the world in 6 blocks of work and one of rest.

It is also entirely possible to consider all of these things literal truth, and there are people who do consider these things...literal truth...(sadly)

Thus, I still favour viewing the Norse legends as mythopoetic explanations rather than as what they actually believed to be the case in the world.

(Note: somewhat jumbled, but it is getting late here.)
Forgive the curtness of my reply, but I think it serves nicely. As with today, some believe one thing, and others believe another.


^
|
|
What he said

[dramatic voice]There is much here I still take issue with. [/dramatic voice]


... however, it is now 3:15am in my part of the world, so I'll catch yous later.

[dramatic voice]There is much here I still take issue with. [/dramatic voice]


... however, it is now 3:15am in my part of the world, so I'll catch yous later.
Why are we debating this here instead of http://life.short.be/ forums anyway?