I canna talkas

[Korytco]

I can talk


I am starting a new thread then going to go watch a film. I just make threads as new ideas spring into mind, or old ones. I hope no one minds.


In debates:

Consider that "sane "(no tangents on the word sane please , just let that word choice slide ) opinions and views, they may be good views, and opinions but they may lack in clarity .
Do you ever consider that while arguing ? When you argue do you try to get inside someone's head, are you there to figure them out and to get real answers from them , the truth? Do you look beyond complications, and poor grammar or loony posts ?

Do you search for honestly and have patience , or do you just take everything literally and first ? They say a lot of people have trouble expressing ideas sometimes even the real smart ones.

Do you judge people based on presentation , or do you judge a person beyond that? Can you see into a person, or even a poster more than than how they express their selves.

How good are you at accepting and understanding a person aside from judging him or her ?

When you read a post do you see how a poster succeeds to post or how he /she succeeds to post and also fails him or herself in that post? Same about people who speak.Do you look for potential in people and others, or do you just not give a damn ?

All you have to look after here is text and ideas, much that can be observed about a person , his focus, his passion, and patience, and many other things that are observed as intelligence to some can not be observed.

How deep do you look into text? Does it inter lock the mind for you , or is it just your own voice every time in your head as you read it, and you decide if you sound dumb or not?

Are you friends with people that type, sound most like you , do you click easy with them or do you search deeper into the text to see how , and who a poster actually is ? Same as speech with a person (I mean same question)

Some posters cloud their text with emotions, it becomes hard to understand because perhaps the poster is not at peace with himself and does not understand his own situation and does not know how to express himself at that time. Perhaps someone is usually stressed but psychologically open to express it on forums, they act like an angry blunt fool on the net but in "life" they act calm and intelligent.

People judge me by the net all the time. Some think they know me, some do, others do not. All of them read my text in one way or another.

 

[der Astronom]

I can talk


I am starting a new thread then going to go watch a film. I just make threads as new ideas spring into mind, or old ones. I hope no one minds.


In debates:

Consider that "sane "(no tangents on the word sane please , just let that word choice slide ) opinions and views, they may be good views, and opinions but they may lack in clarity .
Do you ever consider that while arguing ? When you argue do you try to get inside someone's head, are you there to figure them out and to get real answers from them , the truth? Do you look beyond complications, and poor grammar or loony posts ?

The problem is that I can't see anything beyond what they have presented me, so if they've presented it poorly, I can only argue with what I have, and because I don't necessarily know the people I'm arguing with (and I doubt this is a requirement for any kind of debate), I don't think I should be expected to try to see things from their point of view--I might not even know what it is. I'm saying the only evidence I have is what they have written in the debate, but if they're not getting their message across, and have expressed themselves poorly, then maybe they should work on that.

The grammar isn't entirely a problem, so long as the message is readable, but only up to a certain extent. You draw the line when you can't tell whether it says the panda eats shoots and leaves or the panda eats, shoots, and leaves.

Do you search for honestly and have patience , or do you just take everything literally and first ? They say a lot of people have trouble expressing ideas sometimes even the real smart ones.

The problem is that I don't entirely know how to read an argument in a non literal way. I've never been particularly good at poetry reading, metaphors, or other literary devices. Just not my cup of tea. It's even harder to tell if someone is joking without any emoticons. But if I argue with someone, and I'm not getting their point, they can explain their point more clearly later.

But it seems to be more often than not, I encounter people who are unable to back up their points because they fail to provide any kind of evidence or are simply cutting and pasting their arguments from other people's works, and don't even understand what they're using. I won't accuse anyone here of doing that though, but I'm saying I've seen them often in the past.

Do you judge people based on presentation , or do you judge a person beyond that? Can you see into a person, or even a poster more than than how they express their selves.

I don't entirely know how much you can judge a person on their arguments, which is why ad hominems are discouraged. It is sometimes difficult not to form opinions of others because they make so many fallacies, but while they may make fallacies when discussing a subject they are unfamiliar with, they may be familiar with other subjects. And most debate topics are quite specific, so it is difficult to judge a person on only one debate alone, let alone several, even if they do tell you about the general knowledge, debate style and strategies used by the person you debate with. Well, actually, they do say a lot, but I would like not to judge people on these things.

How good are you at accepting and understanding a person aside from judging him or her ?

I admit I'm not because I'm insensitive and don't understand most people's feelings well. I can accept that people won't agree with me and believe different things, even if they aren't logical, but I don't really have a need to judge or hate people who aren't logical, so I guess I can accept them as they are, but I will probably always have difficulty understanding them.

When you read a post do you see how a poster succeeds to post or how he /she succeeds to post and also fails him or herself in that post? Same about people who speak.Do you look for potential in people and others, or do you just not give a damn ?

I don't really care for the reasons that I am debating with people who are complete and total strangers to me. If they succeed in debating, so they'll succeed. If they completely fail at it, it might be a temporary source of amusement for everyone else, but I can't be bothered to care more than that. If they want to improve, they're free to ask for advice, but it is often the case that they don't usually ask for help.

All you have to look after here is text and ideas, much that can be observed about a person , his focus, his passion, and patience, and many other things that are observed as intelligence to some can not be observed.

How deep do you look into text? Does it inter lock the mind for you , or is it just your own voice every time in your head as you read it, and you decide if you sound dumb or not?

I only look at the content of the text, not whatever else it might imply. It's dangerous to think that there is any other implications of the text that are non literal, particularly when they could mean just about anything. At least if you stick with a literal interpretation, you are taking the interpretation right off of the text you see in front of you, and since this is a debate, and not a literature contest, one would expect that a literal interpretation is entirely suitable.

It only sounds dumb if it is dumb. A fallacy is a fallacy because of what it says, not because of how it is said necessarily.

Are you friends with people that type, sound most like you , do you click easy with them or do you search deeper into the text to see how , and who a poster actually is ? Same as speech with a person (I mean same question)

My problem is that I don't entirely know how to dig deeper into the text that I'm given. As mentioned before, it's dangerous to think that the text means anything else than what it says because it could mean anything, and if you don't know the person beforehand, you have even less to judge the person or their words by. The people I know don't necessarily agree with my own views, but I would like to think that most of them know what they're talking about, and can defend their own views adequately. I also don't expect that they would "sound" like me, and not everyone is quite a robot, because you can still be a good debater and not have the same styles--there are many ways of being a good debater (the converse is true too). But because I never mean to imply anything deeper than what I write, I should hope that it is easy for people to know what I am talking about, so long as what I am writing is clear.

Nevertheless, there are still people who continue making misconceptions of what I intend to write, particularly those who think I'm an "arrogant" atheist or that I think I'm "superior" above people of other religions, when in actuality, I only post my views and opinions of religion so that other people can understand why I choose not to believe at all. I often have to state the things I don't intend for people to dig into, particularly because they were never intended or stated at all. Thus is the danger of non literal interpretations, too vague, and too ambiguous to make any non fallacious conclusions off of.

Some posters cloud their text with emotions, it becomes hard to understand because perhaps the poster is not at peace with himself and does not understand his own situation and does not know how to express himself at that time. Perhaps someone is usually stressed but psychologically open to express it on forums, they act like an angry blunt fool on the net but in "life" they act calm and intelligent.

The converse could be true too, considering that typing on a forum is easy to do, and you can sit there with enough time to think about what you want to say. In real life, you have to be prepared to give an answer or response to what your debate opponents say in real time, and you may not have time to do any research if your opponent has covered a point you didn't think of.

But if people choose to argue out of emotions rather than rationality, that's their loss. I should hope that I, or anyone else making other people "angry" just by providing an adequate or rational argument that tears theirs to shreds are not at fault simply because they don't like the fact that our arguments work, or they fail to express what they mean. Remember, a debate is entirely impersonal, and not meant to offend--if you do not like what's being expressed, even if it is not offensive or distasteful, it is your responsibility to react accordingly--if you take it too personally, that's your problem, not mine or any other debater's. None of us wrote any of our arguments for the sake of offending others, but for the sake of explaining what we see. It may simply be that you do not agree with what we see or do not like it, but nobody asked that you agree or like it. It's a simple fact of life that must be acknowledged.

People judge me by the net all the time. Some think they know me, some do, others do not. All of them read my text in one way or another.

I realize I try not to do this with people, but sometimes it does say things about you. Even if you could disguise yourself behind a persona on the Internet, there will always be a unique part of yourself leaking through the persona. And people will always judge others, regardless of what it is they write or do. Thus is the nature of humanity, and even if it might be wrong to do so, it is prudent to accept that it will happen.

 

[Korytco]

Thanks for the thoughtful read, I hope it (your post) was interesting for you as it was for me.