Adult Debate

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay everyone, we encourage debate on this forum. There however is a difference between civil adult debate, and the tit for tat condescending crap going on in some threads.

This has nothing to do with being an American forum or anything like that. In fact most of the moderating staff is from Europe. So please don't go there.

 

[J.A.W.]

Fair call Chief.

1stly I'd like all members to know, that while I have a competitive streak, & enjoy thrashing out the facts...
Ok, yeah - I can present as kinda intense, & reflexively quick - to 'kick out the jams'..

However, I do not take things written to rile me here, & intended to sting, in bad blood,
nor - are any of my ripostes/gibes made with any intent - to cruel out, or humiliate, another member.

I certainly agree - that as adults, we ought to restrain our emotive responses, & avoid infantile
spats, while being open to stand correction, duly acknowledged, on a fact-checked/valid evidence base.

There are so many here who are prepared to share, & accept new ideas & sources, this is a good thing.

A sense of humour is also a good thing, so just laugh it off, eh.. if I can, you can too...

Cheers,

Jim.


Edit: Fixed typos.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I dunno, the way things have been going here the last few weeks, I've just stopped coming by, it's becoming something I don't really enjoy. I come here to learn more about something I have a great interest in and am happy to do that from some pretty knowledgeable folks. I don't come here for contentious behavior that I'd expect in a game forum with a bunch of juvenile BS. The mods already do a great job and I don't need to add to their problems ( I know you guys do this on your own time and I, along with all the rest of us, really appreciate that ) so for now, adios.

 

[J.A.W.]

Ok so, Cartman.. sez, 'Screw you guys I'm going home."

(joke, ok.. but also true, which makes it funnier).

But hey P-G, to be frank, if you don't really have much to contribute,
other than what your personal slogan puts plainly, then sure - IMO, that's a good call..

 

[vikingBerserker]

I enjoy the civil conversations, its a nice break from all the BS in the real world.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dunno, the way things have been going here the last few weeks, I've just stopped coming by, it's becoming something I don't really enjoy. I come here to learn more about something I have a great interest in and am happy to do that from some pretty knowledgeable folks. I don't come here for contentious behavior that I'd expect in a game forum with a bunch of juvenile BS. The mods already do a great job and I don't need to add to their problems ( I know you guys do this on your own time and I, along with all the rest of us, really appreciate that ) so for now, adios.

Don't give up.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ok so, Cartman.. sez, 'Screw you guys I'm going home."

(joke, ok.. but also true, which makes it funnier).

But hey P-G, to be frank, if you don't really have much to contribute,
other than what your personal slogan puts plainly, then sure - IMO, that's a good call..

And these are the kind of posts we are talking about.

Peter has been a great contributor over the years, and he doesn't need someone being a pompous ass to him.

 

[J.A.W.]

Ok Chief, if its a real stiff-cool tone you want - wilco,
I'll leave out my rakish flourish & ignore the surly stuff, in turn..

Edit: Though to be fair, I was being a 'cheeky monkey' - rather than a "pompous ass".

& I'll add - that while the new, far less oppressively draconian moderation input is
fully appreciated on my behalf, the 'reaching a natural level' - processing, which
flows from this - is bound to need some *fine tuning adjustments...

*Not heavy handed/ham-fisted.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No, we want civil discussion. It really is not difficult to comprehend. I don't think we have been heavy handed at all. No one has been banned, no one has been talked to aggressively. All we have asked is civil discussion, and you are fighting us tooth and nail.

We unbanned you because we are trying to give everyone a chance to come back and contribute. We are running this place a lil less like the "wild west" like it was back in the day. The rules, however, have not changed in regards to being civil.

Now having said that, everyone is here of their own free will. If you, or anyone do not wish to contribute in a civil manner, feel that they do not care for the way the forum is moderated (I hear there is a Belgian F1 forum that is just simply amazing.), then feel free to leave. No one is forced to be here. I hope anyone would want to stay and contribute, but do so like an adult.

Sorry if that is being heavy handed or ham fisted to you, I think I was about as civil as I can be. I'll let the other moderators take it from here.

 

[J.A.W.]

No, we want civil discussion. It really is not difficult to comprehend. I don't think we have been heavy handed at all. No one has been banned, no one has been talked to aggressively. All we have asked is civil discussion, and you are fighting us tooth and nail.

We unbanned you because we are trying to give everyone a chance to come back and contribute. We are running this place a lil less like the "wild west" like it was back in the day. The rules, however, have not changed in regards to being civil.

Now having said that, everyone is here of their own free will. If you, or anyone do not wish to contribute in a civil manner, feel that they do not care for the way the forum is moderated (I hear there is a Belgian F1 forum that is just simply amazing.), then feel free to leave. No on
forced to be here. I hope anyone would want to stay and contribute, but do so like an adult...

Sure, ok.. & so I get a 'warning' for what now.. being "inappropriate".. oh well..

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I don't know. I did not give you, or anyone a formal warning.

I have asked politely, and then told everyone involved to please act like adults and knock it off with the BS.

 

[J.A.W.]

Sorry 'bout that Chief, - it wasn't your doing...

Edit: Addit: & Chief, I commend your forebearance..
& the absence of 'heavy-handed/ham-fisted' actions - in your dealings with me, over the past week..

 

[Marcel]

There is an end to someone's patience. I used up all mine.

 

[GrauGeist]

I dunno, the way things have been going here the last few weeks, I've just stopped coming by, it's becoming something I don't really enjoy. I come here to learn more about something I have a great interest in and am happy to do that from some pretty knowledgeable folks. I don't come here for contentious behavior that I'd expect in a game forum with a bunch of juvenile BS. The mods already do a great job and I don't need to add to their problems ( I know you guys do this on your own time and I, along with all the rest of us, really appreciate that ) so for now, adios.

Don't let these "people" get under your skin...there will always be this sort that, for some reason or another, have to stir up trouble and comment on nearly every post with confrontational attitudes
Not sure why: perhaps it's to push up their post count in order to seem relevant to others on the forum or maybe to boost their self-esteem.

But in the end, they don't last long...

 

[Bernhart]

you don't like the thread, don't read it

 

[mikewint]

There gets to be a point in time in any debate where one must needs accept (always difficult to say the least) that "east is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet" and further verbiage is like trying to teach a pig to sing (a waste of time and it annoys the pig).
It would also be a wonderful thing if "adults" could simply agree to disagree at that point but I suspect that that is a forlorn dream.
IMHO part of the problem is the very nature of the written word. Most human communication is non-verbal and the written word lacks that personal contact. The simple phrase "Drop Dead" can be taken many many different ways besides the literal meaning. One has only to look at the above discussion and the continual use of "CHIEF". Literal?? or dripping vitriol?
I can honestly state that while at times I have disagreed with a Mod or two about some point I have NEVER been treated unfairly at any time. It's a tough and thankless job and the twit population has never been in the endangered catagory

 

[Marcel]

Thanks Mike.


In general, I would like to say this about the subject:
You should always have respect for the others. Even if you think you know better than the other, stay polite, don't show disrespect and at one point understand that the other will not see your point and move on .
If you feel like you've been treated unfairly, don't start a fight, just report to the mods and let them handle it. We have some experienced and very capable moderators who have been doing this job for almost 15 years.
Last but not least, don't forget to enjoy the discussions

 

[mikewint]

I've always felt that it is a shame that with the vast range of people on this forum, their backrounds, countries of origin, education, occupations, etc. that more topics can't be discussed in a civil manner.
In his novel August 1914, one of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's characters says, "Intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility."
I think the term "inadequate education" is the key phrase. I've met plenty of bright people who have years of schooling and letters after their names, yet quickly lose their cool when they encounter dissent directed against their particular worldview. Though they are certainly "educated" it is/was a narrow, focused education. What is missing is a thorough education in the great thinkers, ideas, and events of the past. Such an education can make you profoundly aware of how much you don't know, of how many shades of meaning there are, and of how arduous and unending the process is of arriving at truth and indeed how many truths there actually are in the world.

Plato described the human soul as having three parts—intelligence, emotions, and appetites. Anger belongs to the middle category of the emotions and is considered a "passion" because it is something we "suffer". Plato believed that the lifelong struggle for the human person is to gain control of passions like anger. In a famous passage in the Phaedrus, Plato likens the intellective part of the soul to a charioteer who must reign in the two horses of the emotions and the appetites.
When people get angry when we disagree with them, it is a sign that they have not yet reigned in that passion of anger. Anger will also be a favored weapon in a relativist society where beliefs and positions are increasingly thought of as mere irrational preferences.

Then there is technology. French philosopher Jacques Ellul believed that life in a technological society increasingly required people to be reactive rather than reflective:
"Technology… obliges us to live more and more quickly. Inner reflection is replaced by reflex. Reflection means that, after I have undergone an experience, I think about that experience. In the case of a reflex, you know immediately what you must do in a certain situation. Without thinking. Technology requires us no longer to think about things. If you are driving a car at 160 kilometers an hour and you think, you'll have an accident. Everything depends on reflexes."
If Ellul is right, in the technological society, it's possible that the reactionary response required of us by technology spills over into other human activities and we, for example, reflexively react with anger to mere words.

It is also very easy to avoid anger if you have no personal stake in the outcome, i.e., the issue in question does not affect your liberty, perceived safety, prejudices, worldview, etc., and you can therefore afford to see the debate as just an abstract game which you're playing.
If you want to debate whether space exploration should receive more funding, then chances are neither of us really cares about the outcome beyond personal preference. At best, we might be mildly financially impacted by how much money is invested in space exploration, but there is no direct personal threat.
If we're debating whether Planned Parenthood services should be funded, then suddenly that debate has some pretty obvious consequences for some people who obviously might not have the same capacity to see that debate as just a good old funtime disagreement.

Then we have the individual that really does not care one way or another about the issues but is part of the debate for only one reason: to throw shade and mess with people, to deliberately push emotional buttons attempting to invoke an angry response. Look at the early posts in this thread. Chris was being deliberately poked, prodded, and needled for no reason other than to elicit his anger.

 

[gumbyk]

I've always felt that it is a shame that with the vast range of people on this forum, their backrounds, countries of origin, education, occupations, etc. that more topics can't be discussed in a civil manner.
In his novel August 1914, one of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's characters says, "Intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility."
I think the term "inadequate education" is the key phrase. I've met plenty of bright people who have years of schooling and letters after their names, yet quickly lose their cool when they encounter dissent directed against their particular worldview. Though they are certainly "educated" it is/was a narrow, focused education. What is missing is a thorough education in the great thinkers, ideas, and events of the past. Such an education can make you profoundly aware of how much you don't know, of how many shades of meaning there are, and of how arduous and unending the process is of arriving at truth and indeed how many truths there actually are in the world.

Plato described the human soul as having three parts—intelligence, emotions, and appetites. Anger belongs to the middle category of the emotions and is considered a "passion" because it is something we "suffer". Plato believed that the lifelong struggle for the human person is to gain control of passions like anger. In a famous passage in the Phaedrus, Plato likens the intellective part of the soul to a charioteer who must reign in the two horses of the emotions and the appetites.
When people get angry when we disagree with them, it is a sign that they have not yet reigned in that passion of anger. Anger will also be a favored weapon in a relativist society where beliefs and positions are increasingly thought of as mere irrational preferences.

Then there is technology. French philosopher Jacques Ellul believed that life in a technological society increasingly required people to be reactive rather than reflective:
"Technology… obliges us to live more and more quickly. Inner reflection is replaced by reflex. Reflection means that, after I have undergone an experience, I think about that experience. In the case of a reflex, you know immediately what you must do in a certain situation. Without thinking. Technology requires us no longer to think about things. If you are driving a car at 160 kilometers an hour and you think, you'll have an accident. Everything depends on reflexes."
If Ellul is right, in the technological society, it's possible that the reactionary response required of us by technology spills over into other human activities and we, for example, reflexively react with anger to mere words.

It is also very easy to avoid anger if you have no personal stake in the outcome, i.e., the issue in question does not affect your liberty, perceived safety, prejudices, worldview, etc., and you can therefore afford to see the debate as just an abstract game which you're playing.
If you want to debate whether space exploration should receive more funding, then chances are neither of us really cares about the outcome beyond personal preference. At best, we might be mildly financially impacted by how much money is invested in space exploration, but there is no direct personal threat.
If we're debating whether Planned Parenthood services should be funded, then suddenly that debate has some pretty obvious consequences for some people who obviously might not have the same capacity to see that debate as just a good old funtime disagreement.

Then we have the individual that really does not care one way or another about the issues but is part of the debate for only one reason: to throw shade and mess with people, to deliberately push emotional buttons attempting to invoke an angry response. Look at the early posts in this thread. Chris was being deliberately poked, prodded, and needled for no reason other than to elicit his anger.

I've walked away, or chosen not to participate in a couple of threads recently simply because of the names I've seen posting. But I see some of the recent posters have been quiet lately?

The admin's work in trying to keep this site civil is appreciated.

 

[MiTasol]

I come here to learn more about something I have a great interest in and am happy to do that from some pretty knowledgeable folks.
I don't come here for contentious behaviour with a bunch of juvenile BS.
The mods already do a great job and I don't need to add to their problems ( I know you guys do this on your own time and I, along with all the rest of us, really appreciate that.)

I totally agree - especially the parts in bold