Sky wrote:



The best thing in my opinion to do in a case like that is to ask the insistent party to show how they arrived at that conclusion. If it cannot be shown as invalid, then there is no problem. If it can be, the problem becomes how difficult the acceptance of that is. If one is ok with having an invalid stone in their foundation, then it is not a problem at all.

I have a few! Knowing that, I do not consciously build upon it/them...



Of course, one must always keep in mind that just because something can be shown to be logically sound, does not necessarily mean it is absolutely true. It is just as close as it gets, given our subjective perceptual abilities.

Exactly. I like to try to figure out most things, even when emotions are involved. I gave to thinking some time ago what it is exactly that is the difference between men's mentality and women's. I could not come up with much; though the evidence extant does give one some chance to get at the truth of this, it is still impossible to find that truth, because for that I would need a basis for more thorough comparison. The only thing that would allow me that would be to be able to think as a man and as a woman. But if I could do that, there would be no reason to find it out, there would be no challenge. And if I can't think as a man and as a woman at the same time, then I am not anywhere near the solution to my challenge.

So I think that it would be futile for me to pretend to have a way of thinking like women. If I did, I would be caught out on the first challenge.

This is the main reason I established a non-emotional system of debating. Of course it's useless; if there are no passions (emotions) involved, we'd all be good debaters, but none of us would have a motivation to put forth even one argument. (Hume.)

So... who's right and who's wrong in this argument? Whether to account for feelings of people on the forum, or to weigh only intellectual evidence, or both? I think each of the three systems of refereeing arguments and debates inherently carries the seed of very soon collapsing into itself.

Somebody buy him a beer!

After thinking about this for a few days, while observing the active threads and contempleting past threads, it seems to me that biggest form of "bullying" is belittleing and/or ridiculing other people and/or their beliefs, for whatever reason.

Just an observation.

Very true. I think we are probably all guilty, at one time or another, of doing this out of frustration. But, bullies do it on a regular basis as their normal way of communication.

What about ridiculing or belittling not the people who make a certain comment, not their beliefs, but the factual or logical discrepancy of their statements? We laugh at jokes in movies in which the actors make hilariously stupid comments, while we don't laugh at the actor or his beliefs. We laughed aloud in school when the teacher made a factual mistake, yet we did not laugh at him, by-and-large, because we accepted his superiority of knowledge of the subject matter.

I hope to have some sort of process, mental or emotional, by which we can assure the person at whose utterances we laugh at, that it's not him or her we laugh at, not at his or her opinion either, but at the inherent albeit unintended humour in his or her statement.

One such process is pointing out our innocuous intention when we do such a thing to the original utterer's statement. This is weak, though, because the original utterer may not believe us at every time. But if we work the number of hurts down with this method from the potential number of hurts, then we're doing better than if we did not use this process.

And you get lots of this in these forums and others as well .
Very good observation that needs to be applauded wisely .
.

One of the greatest teachers is adversity.

How can a "logic" be proven to be "right" if it doesn't face adversity and win out in the end?

Kudos to Sky, Wux, and Dragoness...



On adversity...

In times of strife, character is not built, it is merely displayed.

I'm not sure that "winning out over adversity" should be considered a necessary process to prove "rightness".

If that is so, then "might makes right" should be considered an accurate statement.

Which would pretty much mean the "bullying" could result in being right.

Dragonness, where can I get a get-up that you're wearing? on you profile picture. Women would no longer be able to resist me. Or is that a uniform at work? I can't resist a woman in a uniform. Unless the uni-form happens to be a cookie-cutter, and exactly because I appear to be one right now...

Better pull out both of my feet from my mouth and shut it before I get into this mess I've made too deep.

good ponit, but i dont discuss or even argue to be proven right, i do it to either seek the truth, (by POE if you think logic doesnt prove, only disproves) to simply exchange ideas, or to find a solution to a problem. i may be right or wrong in the process, but if i can avoid badgering or hits bellow the belt(adhominem...) than ill get alot further i think.

it also depends on intentions. I participate in this thread for the three reasons i stated above, some people participate purly to debate
(and every good lawyer knows, pathos, a good amount of persuasion, as well as intentional falacies are often, mabey even in most cases, employed to 'win')
some folks are bored, some need to establish the dominance or self control they lack in their real lives for what ever reason.

what ever the case, it all comes down to ballance. you can prove your point without being excessive, or to pasive and giving. having an open mind doesnt mean dont attatch any value to any thing, youl never get anywhere with anything. it means look at every thing and be open to knw ideas. logic is great, but it to must be ballanced with a certain amount of creative/inductive reasoning.
its all a matter of ballance.

forgive my lack of structure, (im a little drunk)

Little? "Little"? On your main pic the wheelbarrow in front of you looks empty from where I'm sitting.

Weed???

funny story about the calf and the wheel barrel actuly

funny story about the calf and the wheel barrel actuly

I lean in Sky's direction here. There are some who are willing to argue for pages on end, pulling in everything they can to prove their point, and attacking either blatant straw men or irrelevant tangents... rather than simply sit back and ask themself, 'What if I was wrong?' or "What merit might there be in this other person's point of view, even if its flawed?"

Tenacity, eloquence, and skill with dishonest (deliberate or not) logical manipulation will give the appearance of 'winning' an supposedly 'logical' argument, but it doesn't make that person right.



But I disagree that the worst form of bullying here is belittling other people's ideas. (Course I may not be reading the same topics ).

I find that 'ganging up' on people who aren't 'part of the in crowd' is the most objectionable, when it happens.

I hope everyone here realizes that there are generational (age-related) trends in the behaviors of men and women in our culture, based on what was considered 'acceptable' and encouraged or discouraged at the time and place of the person's (male or female) upbringing.

But most of all I'd simply like to disagree with the idea that women in general are more inclined to take emotion-based actions than men. Women may (may! or may not) be more likely to offer an emotional appeal, or an emotional justification, but I think men are every bit as influenced by their emotions as women.

The worst behavior I've consistently observed in humans is amongst men who are driven by to posture aggressively; pride, fear, insecurity, concern for the opinions of other, the list of potential factors goes on, but this is obviously based on emotions.

I use my emotions (I hope positively) all the time as a bridge to a subconscious decision making process; many of my rational explanations for my choices are created after the fact. It may (may!) be that men feel (notice that word) greater pressure to provide this appearance of rationality.

One of the major causes of "bulying" is
The reader's complete misunderstanding/misinterpreting of the intended meaning of the OP!

And that is the major cause of arguments:
The OP is referring to "Apples", but the reader is referring to "Oranges"...

---- If in doubt, consult the gardener... And choose your fruits wisely!!!

I stand corrected, and thanks for pointing that out. I have never observed that so it never entered my mind. But I would agree that it is worse.