A rational approach to debates and 'best' arguments...?

[nuuumannn]

Italian Butts Take Love?

Aaaah ha ha haaaaaa!

 

[parsifal]

oh stuff it, lets get back to stuka ale....it hardly ever misses

 

[A4K]

Chris...

Cheers Mike, I reckon you summed it up well, better than my attempt!

...and whatever we're drinking, make mine a double!

 

[69TA]

Good advice I think

In the old days, people wanting to promote a POV generally needed to undertake serious research and then publish their findings in some form (that might be a research paper, a magazine article, a book, whatever). Then an unspecified number of peers would review that work, and the work either accepted, or rejected, depending on the veracity that peer review process concluded about the works involved.

Then there were what might be referred to as the casual conversations....the types that occur in the pub, or over the dinner table. Assertions made without any reall cross referencing or checks. p[eople tend to say anything in those conversations. They are unreferenced, uncorroborated startements of opinion, that cannot be verified, and just usually end up in an argument, unless the participants are of a like mind, or one or both particiapants are very tolerant.

The internet has changed all that. The "dinner table", the "pub", the "forum" is much larger, and people try to pass off written statements as well researched facts. The participants are far from the same or like minded. And, most of the participants are very opinionated. People come into this place for various reasons, and from different backgrounds and experiences, but most of us believe in the superiority of our knowledge. In the context of the wading pool that is our local environment, we are usually some of the best in that environment. we come into this place, and places like it, strong in the belief of our own convictions. But when confronted with other people, who are just as strong in their beliefs, which invariably are different to our own, trouble is in the making.

The environment does not lend itself to considered opinion or the exchange of ideas. But it does lend itself to challenging and offering different perspectiveto the beliefs that we as members tend to cling to. The forum is inherently confrontatioonal, and the mods would do well to take that into consideration as they manage the children so to speak. We all would. if you dont want an argument, dont get in the ring. I believe the line that should be drawn should be a line where the arguments leads to any or all of the following

1) Straight up insults, or flaming of the thread
2) Derailment from the original topic
3) Zero or low benefit to the foum members
4) Statements that are clearly or obviously political or racist(and dare I say it, overtly sexist) in intent

I too apologise for the many past transgressions to my own self imposed code of conduct.

And dont believe what you read on the Internet

x2

 

[GregP]

View attachment 222183

 

[69TA]

Thanks for the acknowledgement

 

[evangilder]

I have no problem with facts contradicting. That is where the digging and research, discussion and comparison are good. Multiple sources of information will give you a better overall picture of the subject, but often contradictory on the minutiae. That is where respectful debate should occur.

When you take someone's facts that contradict what you have found personal, it's time to step away from the keyboard, take a walk, go have a smoke, whatever it takes to clear your mind and think about a measured response before going off half cocked. There really is no reason to attack someone because they have a different set of facts than your source. We are all here to learn and sometimes, that means letting go of old notions of "facts" that have been long held. I have had a number of things that I have thought for years been cleared up and corrected since being on this forum. Dont be afraid to admit you were wrong. There really is no shame in it.

 

[meatloaf109]

No, you are all wrong, I am right!
I base this on, 1) I am right.
2) I have always been right.
and 3) I read somewhere in a book a long time ago that I was right.
Anyone that doesn't think I am right is a stupid revisionist that needs to check their facts and post documents proving one time that I haven't been right, and even if you do, I was probably misunderstood, because, (all together now!), I am right!

 

[69TA]

No, you are all wrong, I am right!
I base this on, 1) I am right.
2) I have always been right.
and 3) I read somewhere in a book a long time ago that I was right.
Anyone that doesn't think I am right is a stupid revisionist that needs to check their facts and post documents proving one time that I haven't been right, and even if you do, I was probably misunderstood, because, (all together now!), I am right!

Now that was funny. At least there are some people with a sense of humor on this forum

 

[Njaco]

bahh, who drinks that sissy lager..........

 

[GregP]

View attachment 222229