NationStates Jolt Archive

Note: The following explanations about forum behavior will contain purely nameless examples to avoid a possible situation where someone might believe they are being flamed by being included in the example, though usually examples are based on events that have occurred. As such, do not assume that I am talking about you and please do not assume that I am trying to flame you. I am attempting to encourage discussion and promote critical thinking here.

So, I've been here on my Kyronea account for a year and a half now, and I was here for a while on an older account, and over that time, I've been observing the forum, to see what's going wrong in terms of debating and why. As such, I've come to the following conclusions:

1. Lack of Understanding:

Oftentimes, people don't even try to understand an opposing point of view, regardless of the subject(though usually they tend to be less willing on subjects that are very important to them.) They'll ignore anything their opponent has to say and will rant and rave about their own point of view. They never consider the validity of the opposing viewpoint and as such this will often lead to flame wars, especially in threads related to topics such as abortion, paedophilia, and homosexuality.

But people do need to try to understand the opposing point of view and recognize that while you might wholly disagree with it and not see it as truly being valid in fact, it is valid for the purpose of discussion. By refusing to understand points of view, people lead into the next point:

2. Lumping argument into defined groupsets

This is something I see so often it's actually rather amusing, especially in threads concerning topics where people will argue against exactly this sort of thing, such as racism. Essentially, when people argue against an opposing viewpoint, they will take their opponent's specific argument and try to pigeonhole it to fit certain criteria. Atheists will often do this to theists' arguments when it comes to threads pertaining to religious subjects, as the theists do to the atheists. For example, I saw one thread where a person was trying to argue for a rather unique interpretation of God that was basically a sort of Borg-like collective of souls from dead people...yet atheists in that same thread kept bringing up counter arguments that would suit the pigeonholing of whatever religion the atheists believed the theist was arguing for.

People tend to miss that very few arguments actually fall into any sort of pigeonhole. While there are many that are formulaic, most of the time the arguments vary in many subtle ways, regardless of the specific argument. Ten different arguments for legalizing abortion can be very different arguments from each other despite arguing for the same conclusion. Perspective is also very important, which leads to my next point:

3. Lack of perspective:

People will almost never look at things from any other viewpoint. They'll take whatever they believe--be it based on fact, logic, reason, or faith, irrationality, and/or anything in between--and oftentimes ignore any perspective to the contrary, all the while refusing to even consider why a person might hold a different perspective. By not looking at things from the opposing perspective, people fail to argue effectively.

For example, let's say we have a poster by the name of Eggbert. Eggbert in real life is a twenty three year old Hispanic male living in the United States, and is rather impoverished, connecting to NationStates only through library computers. Eggbert thusly may be someone who holds communistic views on economic policy and may or may not be prejudiced against those who are not so impoverished and is unable to avail himself of many things, such as education. If in his area it is a certain ethnic group that predominately forms the middle and upper classes on the economic ladder, he might even be racist towards that ethnic group. He might also take comfort in some sort of faith or religion, possibly due to family history, and because he is so impoverished he may plunge himself wholly into it, forming other opinions such as a hatred of evolution or perhaps homosexuals depending on how tolerant that religion is.

Eggbert is a victim of circumstances. Due to his impoverished life, he has been unable to be educated on a variety of matters and has thusly come to the conclusions he has.

On NationStates, however, he may be ridiculed because he holds racist and homophobic viewpoints, though he may receive some sympathy for his communistic view points from certain members. He may be mocked, derided, abused, and above all ignored, especially if he tries to explain anything about his life that might help someone clue in as to why he holds the viewpoints he does. Because no one would ever bother to understand his perspective, Eggbert will continue to hold his viewpoints and they may in fact strengthen considerably. Eventually though some may try to show him the error of his ways in a way that he would have actually listened to, he won't because he will begin to associate everyone as "the enemy" or whatever it is he uses for justification to ignore them.

Of course, Eggbert would not be entirely without fault. Eggbert also refuses to look at things from other people's perspectives and is guilty of many of the same faults that those who would mock him are. Depending on how often he participates in debates he may very well commit all of the fallacies I am listing here, including--especially--my next point:

4. Education--or lack thereof

Education itself is a topic often debated, but here essentially I am referring to being educated about a specific topic one is discussing. On the whole, there are only a few--relatively speaking--of NationStates members who are actually experts in a field such as science, economics, law, or anything else regularly debated here. Most of the time, people will simply think they know a lot when they actually know very little--this is called the Dunning-Kruger Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect)--and will presume to make judgments or dismiss things based on their lack of knowledge.

Take the recent case of the lawsuit against McDonald's leveled by a person who is--supposedly--deathly allergic to cheese. Many people in the thread argued about the lawsuit being entirely frivolous or stating that he should have checked for cheese. Many also tried to argue that there was no breach of contract and thus there is no basis for the lawsuit, or that the employees were entirely without fault. Most even argued that because other reasons were brought up--such as the "harm that might have come to his family members" from taking him to the hospital--the entire lawsuit ought to be dismissed. There were even those that tried to argue it would be like a criminal trial and that a jury would "toss him out on his ass" or what have you.

Simple fact is, none of this has to do with how law actually works, as a pair of lawyers in the thread tried to explain to people. For example, other reasons were brought up because all reasons and possibilities for leveling a lawsuit MUST be brought up at the beginning--even if most of the reasons would be dismissed in court, as they usually are--because to do otherwise would risk a malpractice suit later if other reasons were discovered. There are many other fallacies that lie within the above but I won't go on about them, as my point here is that the people who were arguing them were uninformed as to anything to do with law and as such were arguing without any base in real knowledge.

This is done so often by so many people on just about every topic you can think of that it almost hurts each time I see it. People who try to argue against global warming, for instance, might bring up the fact that water vapour is far more prevalent in the atmosphere and thus disproves the idea that carbon dioxide--something far less prevalent--is responsible. They will then take this and try to draw a conclusion that essentially ignores global warming entirely and state that nothing should be done. This brings me to my next point:

5. Misuse of words and fallacies

Fallacies...one can make an entire topic based on those alone, and as such I won't address most of them here. (If you'd like, a list is available here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)) Suffice it to say, however, that fallacies of all sorts are routinely employed in arguments here...strawmen, red herrings, circular logic, presumption of oneself being the world ("I hate/like X so EVERYONE hates/likes X!") and so on and so forth...it's a mess, basically.

Thing is, people will often try to use fallacies against others and even claim fallacies when there are none. For example--though this is something I very rarely see here, thankfully--I have read debates where people declare whole segments of a person's argument as a strawman or a red herring and then ignore absolutely anything that has to do with that segment of a person's argument. Essentially they use the fallacies as cover for either an inability to argue against the points or because they believe so strongly they are correct that they don't even bother to address them because they "know" the other person is wrong. (And if that is the case, why argue at all?)

On that same token, by all means people should point out fallacies when they actually occur, but if one is to do that, one must also show and explain how it is a fallacy. Even if it is obvious, one should still do so or else they may be looked at as someone just ignoring the opposing argument.

Along with the misuse of fallacies comes also the misuse of words. I know this will probably incite groans, but one of the most often misused words is the word "theory." In common use, it means the same as the scientific definition for "hypothesis" and is used the same way. This leads to a serious problem when it comes to educating people on scientific theories...they will use arguments like "It's just a theory!" when for science a theory is NOT just a theory, but as close as science ever comes to declaring something a fact.

Other words are often misused or misapplied, such as the term eugenics, or partial-birth abortion, usually on purpose for the benefit of the person's argument, which leads to the next point:

6. Hypocrisy and outright lying

People will often criticize others for committing a fallacy or perhaps doing something else on this list, and then turn around and do the exact same thing. Oftentimes this is unintentional, but it happens quite often and people need to work to catch themselves to avoid it, as it severely weakens their argument.

Lying, too, will often occur, usually in conjunction with the aforementioned education or lack thereof point. They will claim knowledge of a particular occupation or field and then make broad sweeping arguments based not on fact, but on their opinions, and will continue to claim these as fact even if those who are actually experts in the specific topic at hand show that they are not.

Lying about other subjects can also lead to strife. For example, let's say there is a small group of five people who like to share an account on NationStates General. They also like to create new accounts every so often and then refuse to admit they were posting under the previous account despite ample evidence to show that they were. This lying results in a large amount of strife and can lead to flame wars and derailing of otherwise solid threads. Like with most lying, it causes nothing but disaster.

Hypocrisy is often committed the same way as well, especially when people claim to be a certain thing--such as, say, compassionate--then turn around and show that they are not, leading to my next point:

7. Dismissal of groups as two-dimensional abstracts rather than full human beings.

This is something everyone does and everyone will continue to do because it's something that is linked to the limitations of the human brain itself. The human brain can only perceive so many people as fully human...past that, it sees others as abstract projections. People will often dismiss whole groups of people or try to pin all of a group as a specific abstract.

For example, to continue with the compassionate claim, let's take how people tend to react against soldiers, sailors, and other members of military forces.
Despite claiming to be compassionate, they will dismiss these people as, for example, "trained killers" and judge them as non-human even though they are. In the United States military, for instance, most of the younger soldiers joined not because they wanted to kill people or anything like that, but because they were fed propaganda about how the military is purely a entity of goodwill or how they can simply help themselves and the community.

In many cases they might not have other choices because they cannot afford to do anything else. What's more, they have huge, HUGE amounts of stress upon their person. Imagine, for example, a nineteen year old soldier station in Iraq. Due to the invasion of Iraq by the United States, most Iraqis tend to despise Americans. That soldier is looking at all of the Iraqis around him and thinking that any one of them might kill him if given the chance. While this might normally be considered paranoia, in the case of Iraq it is not an unfounded belief. That can cause constant fear to build up on the soldier, and he might eventually snap in some way, such as mistaking something an Iraqi is carrying for a firearm and shooting to kill just to save himself.

It's another problem with perspective, as well, since people will associate others with groups and never try to imagine what it is like to be in that group. Obviously I am not trying to say here that all soldiers are impoverished, scared nineteen year olds, or that all compassionate people hate the military, or anything here. I am simply pointing out that people need to stop associating all of a specific group with one specific abstract ideal.

In conclusion, I will end this by pointing out that I am just as guilty of all of these as any one of us, and that I am writing this not to whine or to lecture, but simply to inform and encourage critical thinking, and to improve discussions here. Hopefully by recognizing when one is committing these mistakes, one can correct their arguments and make this place a much better one.

cant argue with that!

i would add

responding to the troll instead of the serious poster and/or responding only to the weak posters

people too often take the opportunity to "crush" a troll with their superior logic as if logic had anything to do with the troll's post. they jump on the weak argument that is easily refuted and spend no time on the more sophisticated, hard to refute arguments of better posters. this contributes to every abortion/religious/political/globalwarming/anarchism thread being a retread of the last one.

I do beleive that you use the term discussion rather loosly my freind.

cant argue with that!

i would add

responding to the troll instead of the serious poster and/or responding only to the weak posters

people too often take the opportunity to "crush" a troll with their superior logic as if logic had anything to do with the troll's post. they jump on the weak argument that is easily refuted and spend no time on the more sophisticated, hard to refute arguments of better posters. this contributes to every abortion/religious/political/globalwarming/anarchism thread being a retread of the last one.
Yes, there is that as well. I was going to address that but I forgot it while writing down everything else. Thank you.
I do beleive that you use the term discussion rather loosly my freind.
Meh. You see my points, though.

Developing opinions is easy. Understanding those that differ from ours is not. We've no interest in understanding anybody or anything; only in protecting our precious psyches.

and how bout

pidgeon holing.

once a troll always a troll. once a jokester always a jokester.

sometimes a troll posts seriously. taking him seriously can help him give up his trolling ways. jumping to a conclusion about why he is posting something--because he is going to end up supporting bush, because he is going to use this to refute global warming later on in the thread--stops what could be a very interesting thread in its tracks. just because "he" started it doesnt mean that "he" has to dictate the flow of the debate to what you assume will be a trollish end. jumping to conclusions so you can bash a troll pre-emptively ruins what could be an interesting discussion and puts it on an ugly personal level.

similar with our funny posters who always seem to jump to the joke answer. sometimes they are serious and when they are they should be treated seriously.

and how bout

pidgeon holing.

once a troll always a troll. once a jokester always a jokester.

sometimes a troll posts seriously. taking him seriously can help him give up his trolling ways. jumping to a conclusion about why he is posting something--because he is going to end up supporting bush, because he is going to use this to refute global warming later on in the thread--stops what could be a very interesting thread in its tracks. just because "he" started it doesnt mean that "he" has to dictate the flow of the debate to what you assume will be a trollish end. jumping to conclusions so you can bash a troll pre-emptively ruins what could be an interesting discussion and puts it on an ugly personal level.

similar with our funny posters who always seem to jump to the joke answer. sometimes they are serious and when they are they should be treated seriously.
Oh, yes, most definitely, especially since oftentimes people will start labeling posters as trolls when they aren't trolls...they just hold opinions contrary to those that the person who labeled them holds.

Even though I occasionally engage in rational discussion, I don't come here to express my views or to challenge other's views. I come here to entertain myself by entertaining others. That's my only real motivation for being here. That being said, I never fully understood the debate mentality. Past a certain point, the 'agree to disagree' effect comes into play in my head. It's a side-effect of what I'm about to mention next.

I have never pretended that my opinion was anything other than my opinion. In fact, I find that I'm very careful in my wording to be sure that I am not trying to express my opinion as anything else. That's important to me and I find attempts to strengthen one's opinion by trying to shore it up with a consensus from a larger set of individuals, real or imagined, are wasted on me.

[6. Hypocrisy and outright lying

People will often criticize others for committing a fallacy or perhaps doing something else on this list, and then turn around and do the exact same thing. Oftentimes this is unintentional, but it happens quite often and people need to work to catch themselves to avoid it, as it severely weakens their argument.

Lying, too, will often occur, usually in conjunction with the aforementioned education or lack thereof point. They will claim knowledge of a particular occupation or field and then make broad sweeping arguments based not on fact, but on their opinions, and will continue to claim these as fact even if those who are actually experts in the specific topic at hand show that they are not.

Lying about other subjects can also lead to strife. For example, let's say there is a small group of five people who like to share an account on NationStates General. They also like to create new accounts every so often and then refuse to admit they were posting under the previous account despite ample evidence to show that they were. This lying results in a large amount of strife and can lead to flame wars and derailing of otherwise solid threads. Like with most lying, it causes nothing but disaster.

Hypocrisy is often committed the same way as well, especially when people claim to be a certain thing--such as, say, compassionate--then turn around and show that they are not,
To me, this is the biggest problem on NSG. Too many puppets and too much puppet wanking. If the puppets were non existent, there would be more orderly debate and prehaps even less trolling. If you knew that Joe was always Joe, you wouldn't have to worry about him being Jack, John, etc.

People giving medical advice who are not doctors is also extremely dangerous. People seeking medical advice here on NSG should seriously reconsider and go and see a real doctor.

Also the debaters that can't or won't back up their talking points with links to credible information often jam up the debate and more often sidetrack it entirely, which could be their purpose in the first place.

There is a lot more but I think these are the more serious infractions.

Even though I occasionally engage in rational discussion, I don't come here to express my views or to challenge other's views. I come here to entertain myself by entertaining others. That's my only real motivation for being here.
We enjoy the comic relief!! :)

That being said, I never fully understood the debate mentality.
Wanna discuss it? :p

Past a certain point, the 'agree to disagree' effect comes into play in my head. It's a side-effect of what I'm about to mention next.

I have never pretended that my opinion was anything other than my opinion. In fact, I find that I'm very careful in my wording to be sure that I am not trying to express my opinion as anything else. That's important to me and I find attempts to strengthen one's opinion by trying to shore it up with a consensus from a larger set of individuals, real or imagined, are wasted on me.
When you are not clowning around, you have made some very succint points in debate, and while I don't always agree with your views, I respect your contribution.
:)

That being said, I never fully understood the debate mentality. Past a certain point, the 'agree to disagree' effect comes into play in my head.

To me, the disagreeing is all the fun. :D

Even though I occasionally engage in rational discussion, I don't come here to express my views or to challenge other's views. I come here to entertain myself by entertaining others. That's my only real motivation for being here. That being said, I never fully understood the debate mentality. Past a certain point, the 'agree to disagree' effect comes into play in my head. It's a side-effect of what I'm about to mention next.

I have never pretended that my opinion was anything other than my opinion. In fact, I find that I'm very careful in my wording to be sure that I am not trying to express my opinion as anything else. That's important to me and I find attempts to strengthen one's opinion by trying to shore it up with a consensus from a larger set of individuals, real or imagined, are wasted on me.

i dont really understand the debate mentality here either.

what is the point of engaging in inferior debate? no one here is an expert (well ok a few are in a few things but im ignoring that part right now). beating a 14 year old in his first "abortion is a sin" debate is no big accomplishment. doing it over and over again doesnt make you more right or more smart. it just means that you consistently choose inferior debaters who cant overcome your debating skills. big freaking deal.

or worse yet you twist your opponents argument to one that you CAN defeat and pretend that this was his point all along. hammering at the same side point over and over again is not victory. the need to win no matter how long it takes to get the other guy to give up is not victory. its a character flaw.

to me its much more interesting to discuss why people have the positions they have. have they thought it out? do they understand the other side? have they considered certain counter points that tend to make their positions untenable? do they have points that i should consider? i do come here to express my opinion and to discuss the opinions of others. i seldom get the chance.


and of course by "you" i dont mean YOU.

When you are not clowning around, you have made some very succint points in debate, and while I don't always agree with your views, I respect your contribution.
:)

Thanks. :)

As for the OP's points, I suspect I have violated a few from time to time. Especially the third. I can't resist the urge to highlight absurdity with absurdity. :p

Yeah, I've definately noticed 1-3 in war related threads.

Nuttin personal, first one that showed up.
Another good point, how many of you plan to admit your failings as laid out by Mattress? Hmm? :cool: (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=126087)Thanks. :)

As for the OP's points, I suspect I have violated a few from time to time. Especially the third. I can't resist the urge to highlight absurdity with absurdity. :p

Nuttin personal, first one that showed up.
Another good point, how many of you plan to admit your failings as laid out by Mattress? Hmm? :cool: (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=126087)

To not do so would be to infer that I am flawless and if I were flawless, I'd have a larger penis. *nod*

I particularly "enjoy" the wolfpack mentality where several posters will abuse a single poster whose opinion they disagree with, no matter what the topic, following them around looking for a reason to pounce.

Another one I "enjoy" is people accusing other posters of being puppets of a certain other poster when anyone with sense can see the two posters have completely different styles. Agreeing with an unpopular argument does not mean one is the puppet of the OP of the unpopular argument.

Worse than that are the bandwagoneers, who then repeat the accusation as if it is gospel truth when actually, it's merely an ad hominem and an inaccurate accusation.

Thanks. :)

As for the OP's points, I suspect I have violated a few from time to time. Especially the third. I can't resist the urge to highlight absurdity with absurdity. :p

You're not what I was aiming at, though. You, I like. Comic relief is good.

It's those who take debates, discussions, and whatnot seriously that then proceed to do all of these things that I was talking to.

Katganistan: Yes...I can't stand those, even if I have very occasionally found myself participating in those activities. (Only occasionally, though, and when I catch myself I stop myself.)

I particularly "enjoy" the wolfpack mentality where several posters will abuse a single poster whose opinion they disagree with, no matter what the topic, following them around looking for a reason to pounce.

Another one I "enjoy" is people accusing other posters of being puppets of a certain other poster when anyone with sense can see the two posters have completely different styles. Agreeing with an unpopular argument does not mean one is the puppet of the OP of the unpopular argument.

Worse than that are the bandwagoneers, who then repeat the accusation as if it is gospel truth when actually, it's merely an ad hominem and an inaccurate accusation.

...you're Max's puppet aren't you! *eyes suspiciously*

;) *ducks behind something*

Some good points there, Kyronea. I fear I probably have commit most of them at some point or another, even though I rarely engage in full debates.

tl;dr

Even though I occasionally engage in rational discussion, I don't come here to express my views or to challenge other's views. I come here to entertain myself by entertaining others. That's my only real motivation for being here. That being said, I never fully understood the debate mentality. Past a certain point, the 'agree to disagree' effect comes into play in my head. It's a side-effect of what I'm about to mention next.

I have never pretended that my opinion was anything other than my opinion. In fact, I find that I'm very careful in my wording to be sure that I am not trying to express my opinion as anything else. That's important to me and I find attempts to strengthen one's opinion by trying to shore it up with a consensus from a larger set of individuals, real or imagined, are wasted on me.

This is a good point and many will try to get into a full on debate when you are just giving a opinion and want to lightly discuss something. I see this all the time in posts. Where a light discussion by many turns into a debate by one or two. Those that want to debate then try and crow about themselves winning a debate. When in fact a debate was only taking place on the one side.

As well as you viewing this as entertainment I do the same thing. This whole forum to me is just entertainment and in the end that is all it is.

I am pretty eager to debate someone who understands that at the end we will agree to disagree, the ones who think they are going to convince me.......notsomuch.

Clarify your point surely, maybe we can find common ground, but don't just shout obscenities and think I am going to jump over to your side of the team.

Even though I occasionally engage in rational discussion, I don't come here to express my views or to challenge other's views. I come here to entertain myself by entertaining others. That's my only real motivation for being here. That being said, I never fully understood the debate mentality. Past a certain point, the 'agree to disagree' effect comes into play in my head. It's a side-effect of what I'm about to mention next.

I have never pretended that my opinion was anything other than my opinion. In fact, I find that I'm very careful in my wording to be sure that I am not trying to express my opinion as anything else. That's important to me and I find attempts to strengthen one's opinion by trying to shore it up with a consensus from a larger set of individuals, real or imagined, are wasted on me.

I gotta agree with LG. For the record, I've tried making reasoned arguments and failed. So I don't try.

I gotta agree with LG. For the record, I've tried making reasoned arguments and failed. So I don't try.

youre looking at it the wrong way.

your job is not to convince your opponent. even if you succeed he'll never admit it.

your job is to convice your audience. if youre right, all your non-debating readers agree with you.

Some good points there, Kyronea. I fear I probably have commit most of them at some point or another, even though I rarely engage in full debates.
Everyone has, really.

tl;dr
Oi. You should read it.

tl;dr

to;dpthat's ok, don't post

or worse yet you twist your opponents argument to one that you CAN defeat and pretend that this was his point all along.

What do you mean the pyramids are in spain?

to;dpthat's ok, don't post
I get the don't post, but what's to mean in this context?

youre looking at it the wrong way.

your job is not to convince your opponent. even if you succeed he'll never admit it.

your job is to convice your audience. if youre right, all your non-debating readers agree with you.

Ok. I'll remember that.

To me, this is the biggest problem on NSG. Too many puppets and too much puppet wanking. If the puppets were non existent, there would be more orderly debate and prehaps even less trolling. If you knew that Joe was always Joe, you wouldn't have to worry about him being Jack, John, etc.
Who is making the posts shouldn't really matter if debate is the aim. What should matter is the content of the posts, not whose name is on it.

The only ways that the identity of the posters can possibly influence any individual debate are if readers/participants use the source of a comment to rubbish it based on past postings by the same person. In such cases the possibility of debate evaporates and we end up with the forum equivalent of the U.K. Parliament - all "oohs", "ahhs" and "for shames" - as the participants lose sight of what they were supposed to be discussing and settle for prolonged mudslinging and petty point-scoring instead.

I get the don't post, but what's to mean in this context?

If you can't be buggered to read the original post, what's the point of posting?

If you can't be buggered to read the original post, what's the point of posting?

I did rea--oh.

Okay then. Thank you, Kat.

1. Lack of Understanding:

Oftentimes, people don't even try to understand an opposing point of view, regardless of the subject(though usually they tend to be less willing on subjects that are very important to them.) They'll ignore anything their opponent has to say and will rant and rave about their own point of view. They never consider the validity of the opposing viewpoint and as such this will often lead to flame wars, especially in threads related to topics such as abortion, paedophilia, and homosexuality.

On some issues - for me it's pedophilia - understanding is irrelevant. What is there to understand about a sexual attraction? Why should I pay lip service to an idea like, "Oh, I understand how you want to fuck children" in order for me to disagree? It's not like homosexuality either. Acting on homosexuality is an act between mutually consenting partners. There is no consent with acting on pedophilia, so it's just rape. There's no validity there.

But people do need to try to understand the opposing point of view and recognize that while you might wholly disagree with it and not see it as truly being valid in fact, it is valid for the purpose of discussion.

In that case it isn't, because arguing in favor for pedophilia is basically arguing in favor of sexual assault. At least that's what I think the mods ruled last time it went around.

People will almost never look at things from any other viewpoint. They'll take whatever they believe--be it based on fact, logic, reason, or faith, irrationality, and/or anything in between--and oftentimes ignore any perspective to the contrary, all the while refusing to even consider why a person might hold a different perspective. By not looking at things from the opposing perspective, people fail to argue effectively.

Meh. I can look at things from any viewpoint. I think roleplaying helps build that as an ability. My favorite character happens to be a pseudo-stalinistic paranoid, sadistic, violent monarch. But still, in NSG debate, I tend to look at things from my viewpoint.

For me, character motivation just isn't relevant to an argument. For an example, anti-immigrants have often given anecdotes about how immigrants turned their town into shit, etc. This gives me insight into why they argue that immigration is an invasion. It doesn't make me respect their viewpoint any more, nor does it make me consider their arguments to be any more valid. Quite the contrary, actually.

For example, let's say we have a poster by the name of Eggbert. Eggbert in real life is a twenty three year old Hispanic male living in the United States, and is rather impoverished, connecting to NationStates only through library computers. Eggbert thusly may be someone who holds communistic views on economic policy and may or may not be prejudiced against those who are not so impoverished and is unable to avail himself of many things, such as education. If in his area it is a certain ethnic group that predominately forms the middle and upper classes on the economic ladder, he might even be racist towards that ethnic group. He might also take comfort in some sort of faith or religion, possibly due to family history, and because he is so impoverished he may plunge himself wholly into it, forming other opinions such as a hatred of evolution or perhaps homosexuals depending on how tolerant that religion is.

Eggbert is a victim of circumstances. Due to his impoverished life, he has been unable to be educated on a variety of matters and has thusly come to the conclusions he has.

On NationStates, however, he may be ridiculed because he holds racist and homophobic viewpoints, though he may receive some sympathy for his communistic view points from certain members. He may be mocked, derided, abused, and above all ignored, especially if he tries to explain anything about his life that might help someone clue in as to why he holds the viewpoints he does. Because no one would ever bother to understand his perspective, Eggbert will continue to hold his viewpoints and they may in fact strengthen considerably. Eventually though some may try to show him the error of his ways in a way that he would have actually listened to, he won't because he will begin to associate everyone as "the enemy" or whatever it is he uses for justification to ignore them.

I see a hidden assumption here that it should be one of my goals to make Eggbert change his views and see things in a different light. Why should it? I'd rather preach to the choir and maintain 10 converts, than preach to a nonbeliever and get 1 new convert. As it were.

On the whole, there are only a few--relatively speaking--of NationStates members who are actually experts in a field such as science, economics, law, or anything else regularly debated here. Most of the time, people will simply think they know a lot when they actually know very little--this is called the Dunning-Kruger Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect)--and will presume to make judgments or dismiss things based on their lack of knowledge.

Yeah, people are dumb.


Thing is, people will often try to use fallacies against others and even claim fallacies when there are none.

Guy I know on tribe.net did that constantly. Oh man it was annoying. He would accuse anyone who disagreed with him of conducting ad hominem, strawman arguments. When it was pointed out that that wasn't true (it was occasionally - broken clocks, twice a day, etc) he took THAT as further ad hominems! To top it off, he would always do this while calling people he disagreed with "shills" or "trolls" or "idiots" or "bullies."

But he's kinda crazy. A conspiracy nut.;)


7. Dismissal of groups as two-dimensional abstracts rather than full human beings.

This is something everyone does and everyone will continue to do because it's something that is linked to the limitations of the human brain itself. The human brain can only perceive so many people as fully human...past that, it sees others as abstract projections. People will often dismiss whole groups of people or try to pin all of a group as a specific abstract.

I believe you are referring to the monkeysphere (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html) theory!

For example, to continue with the compassionate claim, let's take how people tend to react against soldiers, sailors, and other members of military forces.
Despite claiming to be compassionate, they will dismiss these people as, for example, "trained killers" and judge them as non-human even though they are.

I do show a certain lack of respect for military personnel. That is, I don't respect them any more or less than nonmilitary. In the US, this is "not supporting the troops."

However, I would point out that soldiers ARE trained killers; basic training is all about making oneself a weapon and preparing to use that weapon against others - and this doesn't make them non-human. Killing is all too human a thing.

If you can't be buggered to read the original post, what's the point of posting?

Sorry Kyronea-- I reread and realized how it looked. That wasn't directed AT you, it was a clarification -- white text is your friend.

Sorry Kyronea-- I reread and realized how it looked. That wasn't directed AT you, it was a clarification -- white text is your friend.

I understood that. I was just making yet another horrible joke.

Greater Trostia; The whole point to debate is to try to convince another of your point of view, hence the underlying assumption I will not hesitate to admit.

Also, the understanding of the opposing viewpoint does help. Your blatant assumption, for example, that all paedophiles MUST want to have sex with children is false, when in fact most paedophiles despite their attraction and wish to be rid of it, but can't get any decent help because all it results in is their life being ruined while they're branded a sex offender, by the media if not by law. By seeing the viewpoint of the paedophile, that is, the fact that s/he may hate his/her attraction, you can come to a much greater understanding with him/her on the subject.

I understood that. I was just making yet another horrible joke.

Greater Trostia; The whole point to debate is to try to convince another of your point of view, hence the underlying assumption I will not hesitate to admit.

But that's not *my* purpose in debate.

Also, the understanding of the opposing viewpoint does help. Your blatant assumption, for example, that all paedophiles MUST want to have sex with children is false, when in fact most paedophiles despite their attraction and wish to be rid of it, but can't get any decent help because all it results in is their life being ruined while they're branded a sex offender, by the media if not by law.

I don't believe so. The very definition of sexual attraction is a desire to have sex with the object of attraction.

By seeing the viewpoint of the paedophile, that is, the fact that s/he may hate his/her attraction, you can come to a much greater understanding with him/her on the subject.

Whether he/she hates his attraction isn't much relevant to me on this matter. Of course, I rather despise the ones who feel no shame and argue against age-of-consent laws more than those who don't. But really, I'm not here to help console or counsel anyone either.

But that's not *my* purpose in debate.


Then what is your purpose?

I don't believe so. The very definition of sexual attraction is a desire to have sex with the object of attraction.

Allow me to redefine my terms to mean that most feel the attraction but have no wish to act upon it and despise the attraction. Better?


Whether he/she hates his attraction isn't much relevant to me on this matter. Of course, I rather despise the ones who feel no shame and argue against age-of-consent laws more than those who don't. But really, I'm not here to help console or counsel anyone either.
Too bad. You might actually be as good at it as you are at being an ass. (Not trying to insult here, but just describing what you're good at.)

Then what is your purpose?

Mild cerebral entertainment.

Allow me to redefine my terms to mean that most feel the attraction but have no wish to act upon it and despise the attraction. Better?

Still doesn't work insofar as my point.


Too bad. You might actually be as good at it as you are at being an ass. (Not trying to insult here, but just describing what you're good at.)

Oh, I am, but I reserve my helpful abilities for people in my real life. Also, I observe that when I try to be helpful online I tend to get ignored.

Is it even worthwhile talking about "what is wrong with NSG"? Just a few weeks ago there was a bit of a crisis of confidence 'round here (banning of DCD, people taking F&G too seriously, and the 'summer lull') and all that came of that was normally straight-talking posters hedging their comments to the point of meaninglesness. There seemed to be an influx of posters from II and NS, folks who knew the forum rules and had a fresh perspective ... I'm not sure how that happened, but it helped us out of a hole.

There's frankly not much you can do with an idiot. They aren't fun, so just ignore them. That is all I'm going to say about posters and styles of debate. Anything more would lead me into certain hypocrisy, since I often lose my composure badly when challenged to debate anything.

This is going to sound heretical, but the "interface" of the forum is primitive beyond belief and a structural impediment to sensible discussion. It's basically a pile of text (well, one pile per thread) which can't be sorted into any order other than by-post-time. I mean, look at the common attitude towards the timewarp: "it's a bit of fun, spices things up." That's like having a toaster which is so bad at making toast that when it snaps the half-baked bread in half and throws it in the potted aspidistra, the hungry user chuckles and dusts it off, happy not to have burnt toast.

Before I get burnt at the stake, let me make plain what I see as the main problems with the vBulletin interface we're using.

The "hotness" sort means that when a user is bored, they go into the most active thread and cause trouble. A determined asshole will find where the audience is anyway, but "hotness" makes it easy so we get dumb assholes.
The default front page is too short. Once threads drop to the second page, they're virtually dead. The front-page should be much longer than a default thread page, to allow users to see a thread as "new" up to 24 hours after the last post (we're a global community: 24 hours is what it should be calibrated for.)
Posts within a thread can't be sorted except by post time, and can't be rated by users, leading to replies of zero content which are often shorter than what they quote.


One single improvement would be: forward linking to post replies. That is, when B replies to A, a link is added to A's post leading to the reply. If a post has been soundly refuted, it serves no-one for C to add a less-sound refutation five pages later. But of course we do. At the time C reads A's post it's new to them; they want to reply right away. "Read the whole thread" is a fine dictum ... sure people should, but if they don't it would really help to be able to easily find the replies.

Here's some more possibilities:

Thread search in a popup window.
User rating of posts (like the thread-rating feature we don't use.)
User tagging of posts (a popup showing the names of users who liked/disliked each post.)
Per-user thread splitting (hive a series of mutual replies off into another window).
Default front-page sort by posts in the last 6 hours, not just by last post.
A LOL button (vote for funniness of a post without having to reply to it).
"Profound" or "pwned" or "utter crap" buttons, etc.
Teams! (users sign up for a debating team, their username is coloured for their team or a team avatar is shown in the thread they're teaming in).
Sandboxing. Instead of confronting offensive posters with a ban, put them on everyone else's ignore list. Without telling them, hehe.


And some more trivial stuff: per-user sig on/off (for when you want sigs, except one you particularly hate.) Partial ignore (a placeholder for posts by users you have on Ignore, click to show just that one). A real short ettiquette sticky which new users HAVE TO open before they can post.

Several objections spring to mind: a more complicated interface would distract from the content of posts; we get NSG for free so we shouldn't complain; any kind of post ranking system would be abused, favouring more technically savvy posters regarless of the value of their statements; and why fix it if it ain't broke.

There, I just blew my own argument out of the water. :headbang: Why do I do that?? The only objection I can answer is the "well it's free" one: I'd be willing to spend up to $10 a month to be on a better interface with the NSG crew.

So we're probably not going to port NSG over to a more sophisticated forum interface. But we could be a bit more forgiving of each other if we just recognized that there are structural problems with our forum which are the fault of no individual poster.

Mild cerebral entertainment.

Indeed. You have such a mild cerebrum, it's better with a pinch of salt. :p

Oh, I am, but I reserve my helpful abilities for people in my real life. Also, I observe that when I try to be helpful online I tend to get ignored.

Oh, absolutely. The innertube is a mean and miserable place. We should all get lives and go live them.

You know that if I really hated you, I'd just ignore you, right? For some reason, I class you as mockable, like Kyronea himself.

--snippy--
Awesome observation right there. I've been hesitant to jump in debate threads for fear of being dogpiled upon. (I know, my personal views are between that of Ashmoria or Vetalia and that of Corneliu - well to the right of NSG) Well, they could say I'd just have to imitate a pachyderm and grow a thicker skin, but I'm a bit on the sensitive side... so I avoid debate topics or instead post senselessness.

Also, you have a great point right there. To argue effectively, you have to know and look at the opposing side too. That, too is crucial in making decisions and formulating viewpoints. Look at all sides of the issue, and then decide your stand. Remember that what you have decided upon is not necessarily the truth, but rather your opinion an the matter considering the truths (and shall I daresay it? half-truths) you have considered.

People giving medical advice who are not doctors is also extremely dangerous. People seeking medical advice here on NSG should seriously reconsider and go and see a real doctor.
QFT. Also, I believe that it is even doctors are prohibited from dispensing medical advice (especially prescriptions) without even seeing the patient.

I've been hesitant to jump in debate threads for fear of being dogpiled upon. (I know, my personal views are between that of Ashmoria or Vetalia and that of Corneliu - well to the right of NSG)

I'll leave the proper reply to your post to Kyro, but I can't let this pass. You're a great poster, and I wish you courage.

*snip [NH]*
People giving medical advice who are not doctors is also extremely dangerous. People seeking medical advice here on NSG should seriously reconsider and go and see a real doctor.
*snip [NH]*

QFT. Also, I believe that it is even doctors are prohibited from dispensing medical advice (especially prescriptions) without even seeing the patient.

HOWEVER, since you are not debating with CH here, I must raise a dissident note.

CH is OK with me. I read and accepted that opinion, but if you will "Quote it For Truth," that raises the stakes.

"People giving medical advice who are not doctors is also extremely dangerous" I accept as an opinion. I do not accept it as TRUTH.

I'm bugged by the increasing professionalization of all aspects of normal life. We aren't competent to diagnose ourselves with a head-cold and take a day off work ... we need a signed document from a doctor. We aren't competent to chuck our neighbour's garbage back over the fence or cut the branch of their tree where it hangs over the fence, we go whining to the lawyers. We can't annul a marriage or abort a pregnancy without letting trained professionals give us advice first.

What crap. If some moron can't tell the difference between an anonymous stranger with some free advice, and a registered medical doctor with a plaque on their wall and fifty bucks of the moron's money in their pocket ... then frankly FUCK THEM. That's a level of stupidity which amounts to a forfeit of human rights.

I didn't say that to CanuckHeaven because it wasn't waved in my face as Truth. It was an opinion, and I thought "meh."

You quote something for truth, you want to be sure it's true. "QFT" isn't just "yay, what fun." It's your reputation on the line, perhaps even more than the original post.

I tried one thing, nothing happened. So I tried the opposite. I'm an intellectual slut. Also an intellectual thrill-seeker. Hell, I'm so loose in the head, I might have a punt at being the "NSG Intellectual Pancake."

"People giving medical advice who are not doctors is also extremely dangerous" I accept as an opinion. I do not accept it as TRUTH.
CH is OK with me. I read and accepted that opinion, but if you will "Quote it For Truth," that raises the stakes.
Thank you. I did realize now that it's an opinion and not the truth. ;)

You quote something for truth, you want to be sure it's true. "QFT" isn't just "yay, what fun." It's your reputation on the line, perhaps even more than the original post.

"Yay, What fun." ;) Perhaps I misused QFT, hadn't I? You, my friend, indeed captured my sentiment for the statement. It's just "Yay, What fun."

Still, I believe it might be dangerous to get medical advice from random people online, doctors or just random strangers. Actually, at least your classmate or neighbor might have at least seen you with your sickness. I think that was my point. A person posting on a forum has absolutely no idea what you have and depends only on your narration of what you feel.

other parts snipped
Which, incidentally, reminds me of a sentiment that there are now different doctors for different organs: cardiologists for the heart, neurologists for the brain, nephrologists for the kidney, and so on. (What'll be the doctor for the pancreas? a pancreatologist? a pancreologist? what is the greek word for the pancreas?)

I class you as mockable, like Kyronea himself.

Well, that's lovely. At least I amuse some people.
I'll leave the proper reply to your post to Kyro, but I can't let this pass. You're a great poster, and I wish you courage.
I'm not going to give him a proper reply because they're nothing to say.

However, I would point out that soldiers ARE trained killers; basic training is all about making oneself a weapon and preparing to use that weapon against others - and this doesn't make them non-human. Killing is all too human a thing.

As opposed to a hypothetical species which does not kill? Are there any? I don't think so. Even trees kill- slowly, but surely, by choking off other trees. So rather than a "Human" thing, isn't it more of a "natural" thing?

In which case, yes, soldiers are trained killers- and by extension, everyone else is an untrained killer.

[SIZE="1"]snip
too long, too many big words.
me no understand.
therefore you are wrong.

too long, too many big words.
me no understand.
therefore you are wrong.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have our winner of this season's Epitomize NSG Contest! :D

Awesome observation right there. I've been hesitant to jump in debate threads for fear of being dogpiled upon. (I know, my personal views are between that of Ashmoria or Vetalia and that of Corneliu - well to the right of NSG) Well, they could say I'd just have to imitate a pachyderm and grow a thicker skin, but I'm a bit on the sensitive side... so I avoid debate topics or instead post senselessness.


since you mentioned my name...

i do the same thing. if i am interested in a thread topic but it has already gotten ugly, i stay out of it. if the posters arent interested in a give and take but only bash each other, its too unpleasant to bother with.

the execption is that now and then i see someone who is quite right being ganged up on--usually on points that they didnt really make--and i jump in even though i dont have anything more to add than what they already said. i dont do it often but sometimes the "gang of wrong" is just so off base that i have to.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have our winner of this season's Epitomize NSG Contest! :D

Makes me all the sadder....

since you mentioned my name...

i do the same thing. if i am interested in a thread topic but it has already gotten ugly, i stay out of it. if the posters arent interested in a give and take but only bash each other, its too unpleasant to bother with.

the execption is that now and then i see someone who is quite right being ganged up on--usually on points that they didnt really make--and i jump in even though i dont have anything more to add than what they already said. i dont do it often but sometimes the "gang of wrong" is just so off base that i have to.

and I am thankful that you do that. :)

In reference to the OP:

Kyronea, thank you. Your obvservations are sound, and your critiques are instructive. I will mark this for future reference.

In reference to those who have questioned the purpose of debate:

My reason for being here is to work out my brain. NSG is like an intellectual gym for me.

True, I often find myself arguing with idiots on whom I wouldn't waste a second if the situation actually mattered for anything, but hey, I practice tennis strokes against a wall without minding that the wall doesn't understand the game. On the rare occasions when I get to face off against someone who really does understand the game -- well that fun is the pay-off for all my practice against the walls.

Sadly, I do not think I've ever had that happen in NSG. It only happens in real life with the people I know and like to talk to even though we don't agree on everything. In NSG, the people whose thinking challenges and excites me are people who tend to post arguments I agree with or am not equipped to argue against.

But in general, I come here when I'm feeling riled up and need to let off some mental energy, or when my brain is fuzzy and needs exercise to get clear. And I leave here better prepared to debate where it matters, with the people around me who can be influenced or who can influence me and/or my life.

I've tried engaging in "political debate" on this forum. I've since given up, because in the end, all it got me was a sour stomach. Too many ideas for me to get down, before someone else responded, and especially too much of the afformentioned hypocrisy, generalization, pretending to be an expert, and other related...*sigh*...I won't say it.

In any case, I retired from political life, and have since tried to focus more on...fun...concerns...like the Transformer's Movie. :p

Beyond that: Kyronea, thank you for saying what needed to be said. I'd like to link your post to my signature, with your permission, so as to provide a quick reference for myself and any...*sigh*...person...who needs a "reminder".

As opposed to a hypothetical species which does not kill? Are there any? I don't think so. Even trees kill- slowly, but surely, by choking off other trees. So rather than a "Human" thing, isn't it more of a "natural" thing?

In which case, yes, soldiers are trained killers- and by extension, everyone else is an untrained killer.

Learn some context. We were talking about humans killing other humans. Sure, all organisms kill. For example, I'm killing bacteria right now just in my mouth. That's got absolutely fuck-all to do with soldiers being trained to kill other humans, or most people for example, who do not kill other humans.

Still, I believe it might be dangerous to get medical advice from random people online, doctors or just random strangers. Actually, at least your classmate or neighbor might have at least seen you with your sickness. I think that was my point. A person posting on a forum has absolutely no idea what you have and depends only on your narration of what you feel.

Yeah. Those are good points. Random strangers on the internet are no substitute for a doctor. There are very useful sources of real information on the net, but even a qualified doctor probably shouldn't make a diagnosis on themselves. It's almost impossible to objective while experiencing symptoms oneself.

(See the "probably"? Talking about the process of diagnosis is getting into 'qualified doctor' territory, and now I'm nervous to just plain out say "don't diagnose yourself" ... because I'm not qualified to say that. Argh!)

Which, incidentally, reminds me of a sentiment that there are now different doctors for different organs: cardiologists for the heart, neurologists for the brain, nephrologists for the kidney, and so on. (What'll be the doctor for the pancreas? a pancreatologist? a pancreologist? what is the greek word for the pancreas?)

Pankreas! Nice one, friend.

Actually, I had thought the pancreas almost superfluous. A ten-second scan of the wikipedia article changed my mind. That little fella could just plain kill me any time it wanted.

Fine pancreas. Good pancreas. Who'se a nice little pancreas now. Mmm, that's right, you are, my one and only sweet-and-lovely good widdle pancreas. Sorry I forgot to write ...

In reference to the OP:

Kyronea, thank you. Your obvservations are sound, and your critiques are instructive. I will mark this for future reference.



Beyond that: Kyronea, thank you for saying what needed to be said. I'd like to link your post to my signature, with your permission, so as to provide a quick reference for myself and any...*sigh*...person...who needs a "reminder".

Wow...respect from Muravyets and Bolol...

Yes, you can link it in your signature, Bolol, as can anyone else who wishes to.

Wow...respect from Muravyets and Bolol...

Yes, you can link it in your signature, Bolol, as can anyone else who wishes to.

Oh, bully to that. A quote in a 'signature' is like a vibrator in a nunnery -- a dead giveaway that the host hasn't got the goods.

Add my earnest respect to theirs, and also my hope that your excellent attitude of "attack the problem, not the person" can change our real world.

I've got one to add.

I hope I don't come off as being up on my high horse when I say this, but one big problem I've noticed on here is that sometimes people post an argument and demand an answer to their question, as presented, without regard for the possibility that they're asking a question based upon a false premise. At that point, the opponent is screwed in terms of perception, because either they a) Validate the false premise by trying to answer or b)Refuse to answer thus leaving themselves open to a "You're just afraid to respond honestly" attack.

I find that distasteful not only because I've been on the wrong end of it so many times, but because it's so very juvenile and advertises the true intent of the attacker: Not honest discussion, but validation.

Add my earnest respect to theirs, and also my hope that your excellent attitude of "attack the problem, not the person" can change our real world.
I'm going to have to hope you're serious, because I can never tell with you.

I've got one to add.

I hope I don't come off as being up on my high horse when I say this, but one big problem I've noticed on here is that sometimes people post an argument and demand an answer to their question, as presented, without regard for the possibility that they're asking a question based upon a false premise. At that point, the opponent is screwed in terms of perception, because either they a) Validate the false premise by trying to answer or b)Refuse to answer thus leaving themselves open to a "You're just afraid to respond honestly" attack.

I find that distasteful not only because I've been on the wrong end of it so many times, but because it's so very juvenile and advertises the true intent of the attacker: Not honest discussion, but validation.
I have to totally agree with this...it's one of the largest problems involved in the perspective issue...and this happens from all sides of all issues, not just certain people.

One possible way of dealing with a person who's doing that...give an answer with the caveat of "But I don't think the premise is valid so this answer might not be either" or perhaps just state that the premise is faulty and explain why.

Actually, do both.

Indeed. You have such a mild cerebrum, it's better with a pinch of salt. :p

Oh, absolutely. The innertube is a mean and miserable place. We should all get lives and go live them.

You know that if I really hated you, I'd just ignore you, right? For some reason, I class you as mockable, like Kyronea himself.

:( :( :(

My feelings are hurt now and I'm going to go cry and it's all your fault.

*snip OP*

This needs to be stickied.

Kudos, Kyronea! :)