Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Real Life v Online Is Empirically Obvious

Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 6:58:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In real life, you don't get to make friends with anyone you want just because they're there and you find each other emotionally appealing.

In real life, you have to take time, energy, and preparation to actually make your connections work. You don't just get to meet up in a second from "logging in", and get to spend anytime you want hanging out while interacting at your leisure.

Real life takes work. Not only do connections of any type require economic support, but you also have to be at the right place at the right time. Furthermore, you don't get to simply put up some artistic avatar or signature to appeal to others' emotions. You have to deal with how you really look.

That means ugly people are ugly, and pretty people are pretty. If you want to be some shallow jerk who judges right and wrong based on what you feel from how people look, well guess what? In real life, you're an elitist prick, and most people are going to hate your guts. They might not hate you right away like if you're a kid in school who's obsessed with celebrity worship, popularity contests, or pop culture. Once you grow up, your peers become adults, and they realize that judging people according to how they look is very fake. It leads to long term consequences which they literally have to live with. People don't appreciate being judged for something out of their control.

Yea, you can diet, go to the gym, put makeup on, or try some new fashion trends, but ultimately, there's only so much you can do. On top of that, all those things you do again cost real economic resources, but they don't yield anything economically productive themselves. Likewise, you don't get to clamor for community spirit while arguing in the name of emotions because everyone else will see right through you. They'll notice how you just ruined their lives because you're basically saying that since they're not the prettiest people around, they're second class citizens. You're saying they have to trust good looking people with making decisions in their lives rather than allowing them to decide for themselves who to trust with making decisions. The same goes for socializing. It's easy to socialize behind a computer screen when you don't have to deal with the direct emotions of others being there.

In real life, those emotions have actual impacts on what people say and how they think about saying it. You're not merely impacted from the indirect emotional implications of what people say. You're impacted by physical presence itself. On top of that, if it's physically exhausting to get somewhere to meet up, you're going to be even more emotionally impacted. In turn, the people actually come up with rules to mitigate these emotional impacts. They require you to be thoughtful instead of making appeals to emotion in order to prevent these emotions from really impacting their lives.

It's likewise easy to chat on a forum, chatroom, or IM when real life pacing isn't important. In real life, people constantly talk back and forth. You don't get the leisure of taking your time to revise and edit what you say. You don't get to hide behind anonymity.

On the other hand, communities that are full of nonsensical spam in real life die. They literally die. People who just joke around to constantly be attention whores in the moment kill off communities because their nonsense literally distracts people from being materially sustainable over time.

In real life, people crack down on sadistic trolls because of this. They realize how people who screw around literally make a mess of everyone else's livelihood. When trolls judge what's a useful lifestyle for others, others immediately and directly recognize that what's useful is a matter of opinion since everyone's a little bit different. If you want to standardize people to live a certain way, then you threaten everyone, so others stand by the side of those you want to standardize because they realize any one of them could be targeted by that standardization. People's sense of the other becomes immediately conscious.

On the other hand, people also recognize that what's useful is a matter of fact. You don't just get to artistically play word games to screw around with what's a rationally efficient way of making a living. You don't get to deconstruct people because they get pissed off at you if you play word games, and they'll punish you for being provocative. They directly and immediately realize you're getting in the way of people being productive. You don't get to manipulate their psychological attention span to get away with it.

In real life, people are immediately familiar with the limits of evidence because they know they're not born with video cameras out of their eyes, microphones out of their ears, or hooked up to networks of surveillance equipment. People know that it's feasible to get things done even if it hasn't been specifically proven that their style of work is productive. People likewise take offense when others arbitrarily expect them to prove themselves in advance of being treated with respect for reflecting and experimenting on how to get things done.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 8:26:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 7:25:24 PM, YYW wrote:
The distinctions made in this are specious and the analysis is wrong. I will explain why later.

No you won't because there's nothing to explain. The analysis is right.

It's either something you get or you don't, and you don't get it, you got problems.

At the very best, you can compare the deconstructive nature of internet communities to how on occasion, deconstructive communities exist in real life too, but in real life, those deconstructive communities don't stay around.

It all boils down to the concrete nature of economic support, and how the internet doesn't have that. The internet at best, empirically speaking, is just an extension of this deconstructive attitude. It is internally unsustainable, and needs to screw around with other attitudes to get supported.

In real life, if you screw around with others like that, people directly experience the consequences of you screwing around, so you get punished. The only reason you don't get punished online is because there really are no consequences for others if they get screwed around with.
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 8:31:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 6:58:36 PM, Daktoria wrote:
In real life, you don't get to make friends with anyone you want just because they're there and you find each other emotionally appealing.

In real life, you have to take time, energy, and preparation to actually make your connections work. You don't just get to meet up in a second from "logging in", and get to spend anytime you want hanging out while interacting at your leisure.

Real life takes work. Not only do connections of any type require economic support, but you also have to be at the right place at the right time. Furthermore, you don't get to simply put up some artistic avatar or signature to appeal to others' emotions. You have to deal with how you really look.

That means ugly people are ugly, and pretty people are pretty. If you want to be some shallow jerk who judges right and wrong based on what you feel from how people look, well guess what? In real life, you're an elitist prick, and most people are going to hate your guts. They might not hate you right away like if you're a kid in school who's obsessed with celebrity worship, popularity contests, or pop culture. Once you grow up, your peers become adults, and they realize that judging people according to how they look is very fake. It leads to long term consequences which they literally have to live with. People don't appreciate being judged for something out of their control.

Yea, you can diet, go to the gym, put makeup on, or try some new fashion trends, but ultimately, there's only so much you can do. On top of that, all those things you do again cost real economic resources, but they don't yield anything economically productive themselves. Likewise, you don't get to clamor for community spirit while arguing in the name of emotions because everyone else will see right through you. They'll notice how you just ruined their lives because you're basically saying that since they're not the prettiest people around, they're second class citizens. You're saying they have to trust good looking people with making decisions in their lives rather than allowing them to decide for themselves who to trust with making decisions. The same goes for socializing. It's easy to socialize behind a computer screen when you don't have to deal with the direct emotions of others being there.

In real life, those emotions have actual impacts on what people say and how they think about saying it. You're not merely impacted from the indirect emotional implications of what people say. You're impacted by physical presence itself. On top of that, if it's physically exhausting to get somewhere to meet up, you're going to be even more emotionally impacted. In turn, the people actually come up with rules to mitigate these emotional impacts. They require you to be thoughtful instead of making appeals to emotion in order to prevent these emotions from really impacting their lives.

It's likewise easy to chat on a forum, chatroom, or IM when real life pacing isn't important. In real life, people constantly talk back and forth. You don't get the leisure of taking your time to revise and edit what you say. You don't get to hide behind anonymity.

On the other hand, communities that are full of nonsensical spam in real life die. They literally die. People who just joke around to constantly be attention whores in the moment kill off communities because their nonsense literally distracts people from being materially sustainable over time.

In real life, people crack down on sadistic trolls because of this. They realize how people who screw around literally make a mess of everyone else's livelihood. When trolls judge what's a useful lifestyle for others, others immediately and directly recognize that what's useful is a matter of opinion since everyone's a little bit different. If you want to standardize people to live a certain way, then you threaten everyone, so others stand by the side of those you want to standardize because they realize any one of them could be targeted by that standardization. People's sense of the other becomes immediately conscious.

On the other hand, people also recognize that what's useful is a matter of fact. You don't just get to artistically play word games to screw around with what's a rationally efficient way of making a living. You don't get to deconstruct people because they get pissed off at you if you play word games, and they'll punish you for being provocative. They directly and immediately realize you're getting in the way of people being productive. You don't get to manipulate their psychological attention span to get away with it.

In real life, people are immediately familiar with the limits of evidence because they know they're not born with video cameras out of their eyes, microphones out of their ears, or hooked up to networks of surveillance equipment. People know that it's feasible to get things done even if it hasn't been specifically proven that their style of work is productive. People likewise take offense when others arbitrarily expect them to prove themselves in advance of being treated with respect for reflecting and experimenting on how to get things done.

I can say without a doubt that this article was time wasted, and I suggest you spend time researching the topic.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 8:40:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
By the way, you can't deny this because the internet's attitude is remarkably consequentialist. There are no physical consequences for trolling someone online, so people don't care. In contrast, the internet doesn't care much about intention-oriented ethics because it associates those ideals with religion, and the technological structure and culture of the internet prohibits anything even like religion from resonating.

The real world, in contrast, does care about intentions because in real life, people know how intentions make things happen. On top of that, people directly experience how when their intentions are violated, their real lives get impacted. There's literally a consequence for violating intentions, so people have to care.

On top of that, when people are trolled online, there's no real life consequence, so people in real life don't intervene to discipline people online either.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 8:41:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 8:31:53 PM, TheProphett wrote:
I can say without a doubt that this article was time wasted, and I suggest you spend time researching the topic.

Yea whatever troll.

Keep believing you're in reality when in reality, you're in a fantasyland.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 8:57:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think most people will realize that this analysis is trash.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 8:57:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 8:41:10 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 10/14/2015 8:31:53 PM, TheProphett wrote:
I can say without a doubt that this article was time wasted, and I suggest you spend time researching the topic.


Yea whatever troll.

Keep believing you're in reality when in reality, you're in a fantasyland.

I think you should read bsh1's post, and then analyze the sources.

As to respond to your accusation of being a troll, I think you should re-read your article and responses, and then correct your judgement.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 8:59:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 8:57:08 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think most people will realize that this analysis is trash.

I think most people online are out of touch with reality and rationalize excuses to carry on with their nonsense.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:01:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 8:57:51 PM, TheProphett wrote:
As to respond to your accusation of being a troll, I think you should re-read your article and responses, and then correct your judgement.

Bsh's argument talks about connections. He doesn't talk about how connections are made.

Anyone in touch with reality knows that connections don't spawn at the snap of a finger.

...but he's pro-internet, and that's how the internet treats things. It doesn't have a reliable sense of time in understanding the material constraints of relationships.
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:01:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 8:59:11 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 10/14/2015 8:57:08 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think most people will realize that this analysis is trash.

I think most people online are out of touch with reality and rationalize excuses to carry on with their nonsense.

This site is home to a community that contains some of the most intelligent people I have ever met. Yes, I mean the literal "met." Online isn't some fantasy simulation where nobody is meeting other humans. Contrary to your misguided critique, people online can carry out friendships and connections with other people.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:01:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 8:59:11 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 10/14/2015 8:57:08 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think most people will realize that this analysis is trash.

I think most people online are out of touch with reality and rationalize excuses to carry on with their nonsense.

Well, I am glad you're willing to present yourself as evidence for you own point of view. It's nice to see people put their money where their mouth is.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:02:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 9:01:26 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 10/14/2015 8:57:51 PM, TheProphett wrote:
As to respond to your accusation of being a troll, I think you should re-read your article and responses, and then correct your judgement.

Bsh's argument talks about connections. He doesn't talk about how connections are made.

Anyone in touch with reality knows that connections don't spawn at the snap of a finger.

...but he's pro-internet, and that's how the internet treats things. It doesn't have a reliable sense of time in understanding the material constraints of relationships.

I reached out to several members on this site, and have developed friendships. The answer is yes, connections can begin through clattering on a keyboard and talking to people in google hangouts.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:05:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 9:02:42 PM, TheProphett wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:01:26 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 10/14/2015 8:57:51 PM, TheProphett wrote:
As to respond to your accusation of being a troll, I think you should re-read your article and responses, and then correct your judgement.

Bsh's argument talks about connections. He doesn't talk about how connections are made.

Anyone in touch with reality knows that connections don't spawn at the snap of a finger.

...but he's pro-internet, and that's how the internet treats things. It doesn't have a reliable sense of time in understanding the material constraints of relationships.

I reached out to several members on this site, and have developed friendships. The answer is yes, connections can begin through clattering on a keyboard and talking to people in google hangouts.

Yea, you're definitely trolling now.

I never denied that connections can be made. The question is about how.
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:07:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 9:05:40 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:02:42 PM, TheProphett wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:01:26 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 10/14/2015 8:57:51 PM, TheProphett wrote:
As to respond to your accusation of being a troll, I think you should re-read your article and responses, and then correct your judgement.

Bsh's argument talks about connections. He doesn't talk about how connections are made.

Anyone in touch with reality knows that connections don't spawn at the snap of a finger.

...but he's pro-internet, and that's how the internet treats things. It doesn't have a reliable sense of time in understanding the material constraints of relationships.

I reached out to several members on this site, and have developed friendships. The answer is yes, connections can begin through clattering on a keyboard and talking to people in google hangouts.

Yea, you're definitely trolling now.

I never denied that connections can be made. The question is about how.

I just gave an example of how connections are made. People reach out to one another, begin talking to each other, share common interests and ideas, and begin to form a friendship. That is the course of action that many on this site have taken when developing connections with other members.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:09:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 9:07:26 PM, TheProphett wrote:
I just gave an example of how connections are made. People reach out to one another, begin talking to each other, share common interests and ideas, and begin to form a friendship. That is the course of action that many on this site have taken when developing connections with other members.

I KNEW you were going to say that.

You're still trolling. I wasn't asking about how they're made. I was comparing how online relationships are made versus real life relationships. That's what the topic is about - real life versus online.
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:12:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 9:09:31 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:07:26 PM, TheProphett wrote:
I just gave an example of how connections are made. People reach out to one another, begin talking to each other, share common interests and ideas, and begin to form a friendship. That is the course of action that many on this site have taken when developing connections with other members.

I KNEW you were going to say that.

You're still trolling. I wasn't asking about how they're made. I was comparing how online relationships are made versus real life relationships. That's what the topic is about - real life versus online.

Yet making connections in both follows along the same lines. There are some people that are easy to form relationships with, while others may prove to be a harder nut to crack. When relationships do form, and friendships begin to grow and develop, people both online and face-to-face gain the same stimulation. What you don't understand is that human interaction and communicating is not limited to face-to-face, and online is not of any lesser value.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:16:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 9:12:30 PM, TheProphett wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:09:31 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:07:26 PM, TheProphett wrote:
I just gave an example of how connections are made. People reach out to one another, begin talking to each other, share common interests and ideas, and begin to form a friendship. That is the course of action that many on this site have taken when developing connections with other members.

I KNEW you were going to say that.

You're still trolling. I wasn't asking about how they're made. I was comparing how online relationships are made versus real life relationships. That's what the topic is about - real life versus online.

Yet making connections in both follows along the same lines. There are some people that are easy to form relationships with, while others may prove to be a harder nut to crack. When relationships do form, and friendships begin to grow and develop, people both online and face-to-face gain the same stimulation. What you don't understand is that human interaction and communicating is not limited to face-to-face, and online is not of any lesser value.

....

This is your argument:

Real life relationships are based on A.

Online relationships are based on A too.

Therefore they're the same.

Did it ever pop into your head that real life relationships are based on MORE than just A?

The MATERIALITY OF REAL LIFE directly plays a role in relationships.

EMPIRICALLY SPEAKING this makes a difference.
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:18:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 9:16:44 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:12:30 PM, TheProphett wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:09:31 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:07:26 PM, TheProphett wrote:
I just gave an example of how connections are made. People reach out to one another, begin talking to each other, share common interests and ideas, and begin to form a friendship. That is the course of action that many on this site have taken when developing connections with other members.

I KNEW you were going to say that.

You're still trolling. I wasn't asking about how they're made. I was comparing how online relationships are made versus real life relationships. That's what the topic is about - real life versus online.

Yet making connections in both follows along the same lines. There are some people that are easy to form relationships with, while others may prove to be a harder nut to crack. When relationships do form, and friendships begin to grow and develop, people both online and face-to-face gain the same stimulation. What you don't understand is that human interaction and communicating is not limited to face-to-face, and online is not of any lesser value.

....

This is your argument:

Real life relationships are based on A.

Online relationships are based on A too.

Therefore they're the same.

Did it ever pop into your head that real life relationships are based on MORE than just A?

The MATERIALITY OF REAL LIFE directly plays a role in relationships.

EMPIRICALLY SPEAKING this makes a difference.

I had no intention of this turning into a flame war, or an intense and uncivil discourse. If you would like to continue to argue with me, I suggest you add me as a friend, PM me, or read articles on the subject.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:21:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 9:18:31 PM, TheProphett wrote:
I had no intention of this turning into a flame war, or an intense and uncivil discourse. If you would like to continue to argue with me, I suggest you add me as a friend, PM me, or read articles on the subject.

Did you read my other thread on this that talked about rational similarity?

You sound like you're making a rational argument, but you're not willing to abandon your empirical roots.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 11:36:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 8:26:45 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 10/14/2015 7:25:24 PM, YYW wrote:
The distinctions made in this are specious and the analysis is wrong. I will explain why later.

No you won't because there's nothing to explain. The analysis is right.

It's either something you get or you don't, and you don't get it, you got problems.

At the very best, you can compare the deconstructive nature of internet communities to how on occasion, deconstructive communities exist in real life too, but in real life, those deconstructive communities don't stay around.

It all boils down to the concrete nature of economic support, and how the internet doesn't have that. The internet at best, empirically speaking, is just an extension of this deconstructive attitude. It is internally unsustainable, and needs to screw around with other attitudes to get supported.

In real life, if you screw around with others like that, people directly experience the consequences of you screwing around, so you get punished. The only reason you don't get punished online is because there really are no consequences for others if they get screwed around with.

I am in agreement with the Prophet, that your efforts here were wasted.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 11:44:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 8:57:08 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think most people will realize that this analysis is trash.

lol yup

It's an incredibly weak argument, based on specious contrasts, to precisely no sound conclusion.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 12:11:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't profess to know the point of the OP, whether he's actually making an argument or just listing different contrasts, but...

I am nevertheless perturbed by the slew of mindless dismissals from the respondents. No one is entitled to reject or denigrate an argument offhand and without reason.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 12:15:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 12:11:52 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't profess to know the point of the OP, whether he's actually making an argument or just listing different contrasts, but...

I am nevertheless perturbed by the slew of mindless dismissals from the respondents. No one is entitled to reject or denigrate an argument offhand and without reason.

Ah, but I am. Some arguments are so stupid that they can be summarily dismissed. This would fall into that category.

Now, it might not be a kind of generous or charitable thing to do... but I can certainly do it, because I do not have a duty to refute any argument (whether the argument is meritorious or not).

Likewise, the fact that reasons describing why the argument was stupid, or rebuttals were not listed does not mean that, as you said, the dismissals are "mindless."

A "mindless" dismissal would be one that was not contemplated or reflected upon. The fact that reasons for it's stupidity or inadequacy were not typed does not mean that they were not contemplated, meaning that it is not necessarily the case that the dismissals are "mindless."

(FYI head's I'm right, tails you're wrong... hehehe)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 12:18:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 12:15:23 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/15/2015 12:11:52 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't profess to know the point of the OP, whether he's actually making an argument or just listing different contrasts, but...

I am nevertheless perturbed by the slew of mindless dismissals from the respondents. No one is entitled to reject or denigrate an argument offhand and without reason.

Ah, but I am. Some arguments are so stupid that they can be summarily dismissed. This would fall into that category.

Now, it might not be a kind of generous or charitable thing to do... but I can certainly do it, because I do not have a duty to refute any argument (whether the argument is meritorious or not).

Likewise, the fact that reasons describing why the argument was stupid, or rebuttals were not listed does not mean that, as you said, the dismissals are "mindless."

A "mindless" dismissal would be one that was not contemplated or reflected upon. The fact that reasons for it's stupidity or inadequacy were not typed does not mean that they were not contemplated, meaning that it is not necessarily the case that the dismissals are "mindless."

(FYI head's I'm right, tails you're wrong... hehehe)

lol I'm actually shaking my head right now. When will you change?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 12:19:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 12:18:46 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/15/2015 12:15:23 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/15/2015 12:11:52 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't profess to know the point of the OP, whether he's actually making an argument or just listing different contrasts, but...

I am nevertheless perturbed by the slew of mindless dismissals from the respondents. No one is entitled to reject or denigrate an argument offhand and without reason.

Ah, but I am. Some arguments are so stupid that they can be summarily dismissed. This would fall into that category.

Now, it might not be a kind of generous or charitable thing to do... but I can certainly do it, because I do not have a duty to refute any argument (whether the argument is meritorious or not).

Likewise, the fact that reasons describing why the argument was stupid, or rebuttals were not listed does not mean that, as you said, the dismissals are "mindless."

A "mindless" dismissal would be one that was not contemplated or reflected upon. The fact that reasons for it's stupidity or inadequacy were not typed does not mean that they were not contemplated, meaning that it is not necessarily the case that the dismissals are "mindless."

(FYI head's I'm right, tails you're wrong... hehehe)

lol I'm actually shaking my head right now. When will you change?

It's a debate website, Ike... lol
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 12:22:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 12:18:46 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/15/2015 12:15:23 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/15/2015 12:11:52 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't profess to know the point of the OP, whether he's actually making an argument or just listing different contrasts, but...

I am nevertheless perturbed by the slew of mindless dismissals from the respondents. No one is entitled to reject or denigrate an argument offhand and without reason.

Ah, but I am. Some arguments are so stupid that they can be summarily dismissed. This would fall into that category.

Now, it might not be a kind of generous or charitable thing to do... but I can certainly do it, because I do not have a duty to refute any argument (whether the argument is meritorious or not).

Likewise, the fact that reasons describing why the argument was stupid, or rebuttals were not listed does not mean that, as you said, the dismissals are "mindless."

A "mindless" dismissal would be one that was not contemplated or reflected upon. The fact that reasons for it's stupidity or inadequacy were not typed does not mean that they were not contemplated, meaning that it is not necessarily the case that the dismissals are "mindless."

(FYI head's I'm right, tails you're wrong... hehehe)

lol I'm actually shaking my head right now. When will you change?

Likewise, there is some irony in your response there. Earlier you say that no argument can just be summarily dismissed.... but here you tacitly dismiss what I'm saying by making an implicit ad hom. attack (by implying that what I'm saying should be dismissed because I'm argumentative) which is really not a meaningful rebuttal, insofar as it doesn't help your argument, and it's in contradiction with what you said earlier.

Check. And. Mate.

haha
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 12:25:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 6:58:36 PM, Daktoria wrote:

Sweetheart, relationships and connections are build on understanding and empathy. That's how you distinguish the closeness of bonds.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 1:17:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 8:57:08 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think most people will realize that this analysis is trash.

I think most people will not waste their time reading that bigass blob of text posted by a user without a profile picture. ;-)
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 1:21:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 6:58:36 PM, Daktoria wrote:
In real life, you don't get to make friends with anyone you want just because they're there and you find each other emotionally appealing.


Yes, but afterwards it can be good.

In real life, you have to take time, energy, and preparation to actually make your connections work. You don't just get to meet up in a second from "logging in", and get to spend anytime you want hanging out while interacting at your leisure.


Nonetheless, real life ought not to be neglected for the sake of online counterparts. Therefore, your entire point is moot.

Real life takes work. Not only do connections of any type require economic support, but you also have to be at the right place at the right time. Furthermore, you don't get to simply put up some artistic avatar or signature to appeal to others' emotions. You have to deal with how you really look.


However, I would point out that certain users have reservations about this. Therefore, I don't think this point is self evident, and as such, you are merely appealing to your own personal opinion.

That means ugly people are ugly, and pretty people are pretty. If you want to be some shallow jerk who judges right and wrong based on what you feel from how people look, well guess what? In real life, you're an elitist prick, and most people are going to hate your guts. They might not hate you right away like if you're a kid in school who's obsessed with celebrity worship, popularity contests, or pop culture. Once you grow up, your peers become adults, and they realize that judging people according to how they look is very fake. It leads to long term consequences which they literally have to live with. People don't appreciate being judged for something out of their control.


Please, try to argue in a more calm tone. The problem with your argument is that it suffers from basic logical flaws. For example, in this paragraph you commit numerous straw man arguments as well as the fallacy of undistributed middle. By applying these rhetorical techniques, you have attempted to make an argument but have in fact failed.

Yea, you can diet, go to the gym, put makeup on, or try some new fashion trends, but ultimately, there's only so much you can do. On top of that, all those things you do again cost real economic resources, but they don't yield anything economically productive themselves. Likewise, you don't get to clamor for community spirit while arguing in the name of emotions because everyone else will see right through you. They'll notice how you just ruined their lives because you're basically saying that since they're not the prettiest people around, they're second class citizens. You're saying they have to trust good looking people with making decisions in their lives rather than allowing them to decide for themselves who to trust with making decisions. The same goes for socializing. It's easy to socialize behind a computer screen when you don't have to deal with the direct emotions of others being there.


Science has shown that socialization has become the norm amongst teenagers nowadays, who would obviously take offense at the anti-semitic comments which are implied by this mind-numbingly idiotic paragraph.

In real life, those emotions have actual impacts on what people say and how they think about saying it. You're not merely impacted from the indirect emotional implications of what people say. You're impacted by physical presence itself. On top of that, if it's physically exhausting to get somewhere to meet up, you're going to be even more emotionally impacted. In turn, the people actually come up with rules to mitigate these emotional impacts. They require you to be thoughtful instead of making appeals to emotion in order to prevent these emotions from really impacting their lives.


This arguments reminds me of something Hitler said before starting the final solution.

It's likewise easy to chat on a forum, chatroom, or IM when real life pacing isn't important. In real life, people constantly talk back and forth. You don't get the leisure of taking your time to revise and edit what you say. You don't get to hide behind anonymity.

On the other hand, communities that are full of nonsensical spam in real life die. They literally die. People who just joke around to constantly be attention whores in the moment kill off communities because their nonsense literally distracts people from being materially sustainable over time.

In real life, people crack down on sadistic trolls because of this. They realize how people who screw around literally make a mess of everyone else's livelihood. When trolls judge what's a useful lifestyle for others, others immediately and directly recognize that what's useful is a matter of opinion since everyone's a little bit different. If you want to standardize people to live a certain way, then you threaten everyone, so others stand by the side of those you want to standardize because they realize any one of them could be targeted by that standardization. People's sense of the other becomes immediately conscious.

On the other hand, people also recognize that what's useful is a matter of fact. You don't just get to artistically play word games to screw around with what's a rationally efficient way of making a living. You don't get to deconstruct people because they get pissed off at you if you play word games, and they'll punish you for being provocative. They directly and immediately realize you're getting in the way of people being productive. You don't get to manipulate their psychological attention span to get away with it.

In real life, people are immediately familiar with the limits of evidence because they know they're not born with video cameras out of their eyes, microphones out of their ears, or hooked up to networks of surveillance equipment. People know that it's feasible to get things done even if it hasn't been specifically proven that their style of work is productive. People likewise take offense when others arbitrarily expect them to prove themselves in advance of being treated with respect for reflecting and experimenting on how to get things done.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."