Is it SDN's fault that you're aggressive or argumentative

[Stark]

based on like this guy saying 'sdn turns me evil' i wanna know if any you peeps outthere think that readin and rockin sdn has made you y'know a bit more in yo face when it comes to convers8tions and debate natch! I'm an orrible cunt but i was always that way i don think it's the bizzoard ya feelme?

srios biznezzors

[Surlethe]

Probably. It's because old farts like yourself had their personalities pretty much set when they found this here board, but the people who stumbled on it in their formative teen years were influenced to some degree or another.

[Stark]

hey that's a fine point there butlerfly, i was hell old alreadyz and down with the stylin stark situation when i started postin here, but you an ace and shizzint were in highschool... are you now an intellectual pit fighter who sees every idea as your next target, every leading question as something to be attacked?

Actually, I believe Mike has commented before about how some of our members apparently can't modulate their debating outside the SDN environment. Hmmm.

[Pick]

I think this board encourages a very Ancient Greek perspective on things, which is that it's more important to "win" than to actually be right.

Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths.

Also, there seems to be little or no attempt to engage in honest discourse, which can allow people to form intelligent and informed opinions. Instead, it seems everyone comes into every scene with their ideas already firmly in play, long before all the information has been analyzed. Then it all comes down to some sort of "logic battle for great glory" which is often based on faulty assumptions, such as Valdemar thinking that the Federal Reserve should control the money supply instead of change interest rates, totally and completely ignorant of the fact that changes in the interest rate (including federal funds rate) are exactly how the Fed go about doing such a thing.

I think the most important thing for a forum like this is to help agglomerate information that has to do with central subjects, so that people are able to create meaningful opinions. However, it seems that data only really comes to light when people are already bickering. Think of how many pointless posts we'd have been saved if people just posted their resources first, and then everyone read over them before the fights began.

Yes, I realize that this post in and of itself will probably be considered inflammatory. Oh boy.

Edit- Also, to be fair, I'm probably the one to blame for the post which I'm assuming led to the OT, since this is something I've discussed before.

[Feil]

But if there were no flames, what would power the steam-turbines that run SDN?

[rhoenix]

*shrug*

I've become a better debator because of this site, as well as better at picking apart someone's reasoning and point of view, but I'm no more argumentative or aggressive in discussions because of it. I still hold compassion for the other person's point of view, because for them, it's their reality - assaulting someone's personal reality rarely brings about positive change.

With that said though, I use the "boil the frog" method in debating by starting with their point of view, and walking with them step by step to the point I'm trying to make. I'm still practicing that, but I'm getting better.

[Stark]

hey hey teeth girl (lol pun on text+av lol) that's why we're in teh testin cause we can be talking bout it non-serious like!

The only thing like this I really experience is the pages of flames that are often exchanged over a single misinterpretation of a vague statement, because neither side wants to give an inch on even something so irrelevant.

[Surlethe]

I think this board encourages a very Ancient Greek perspective on things, which is that it's more important to "win" than to actually be right.

Ideally, in a debate, the winning side is actually correct, which is a critical difference between debating and real battles. Of course, that's ideal; in reality, we all rely on rhetorical tricks and smoke and mirrors from time to time. The nice thing about this place is that when you do that to support a point, you tend to get your legs kicked out from under you.

Also, there seems to be little or no attempt to engage in honest discourse, which can allow people to form intelligent and informed opinions. Instead, it seems everyone comes into every scene with their ideas already firmly in play, long before all the information has been analyzed. Then it all comes down to some sort of "logic battle for great glory" which is often based on faulty assumptions, such as Valdemar thinking that the Federal Reserve should control the money supply instead of change interest rates, totally and completely ignorant of the fact that changes in the interest rate (including federal funds rate) are exactly how the Fed go about doing such a thing.

I think the most important thing for a forum like this is to help agglomerate information that has to do with central subjects, so that people are able to create meaningful opinions. However, it seems that data only really comes to light when people are already bickering. Think of how many pointless posts we'd have been saved if people just posted their resources first, and then everyone read over them before the fights began.

This is true. In some sense, you're right: a lot of fun arguments (or pointless fights, depending on your point of view ) wouldn't have happened. And some of it depends on the skill level of the debaters; people who are good at debating can evaluate their opponents' positions quickly and then decide whether to pursue it or not, sort of like a grandmaster will resign several moves before it's obvious to anybody else that his position's untenable.

But in another sense, this sort of argumentative atmosphere is good at showing each argument for what it is. It's sort of like an intellectual testing-ground: ideas are thrown through the crucible of debate time and time again; if they're poor, they fail; and if they're good, they stay. If the culture is kept honest and not a circle-jerk of epic proportions, then over time the ideas and arguments should tend toward what the truth actually is. So, if done properly, the honest discourse you alluded to is exactly the debates that go on.

The added bonus here is that since this is originally a sci-fi debate board, probably more than 80% of the board is men. That might have something to do with it.

Yes, I realize that this post in and of itself will probably be considered inflammatory. Oh boy.

Yeah, that's rahght. You so goin' dayown!

Edit- Also, to be fair, I'm probably the one to blame for the post which I'm assuming led to the OT, since this is something I've discussed before.

I thought Stark was talking about your brother's goodbye?

PS- The next time Valdemar bases a monetary argument on false premises, you should call him out, if you've got the time.

[Pick]

hey hey teeth girl (lol pun on text+av lol) that's why we're in teh testin cause we can be talking bout it non-serious like!

I like that it's in Testing because I really don't give a shit about the serious boards beyond merely amassing information, and certainly not enough to waste part of my very finite life arguing in the vain hope of changing the mind of someone with a flaming toaster as his avatar or something.

The only thing like this I really experience is the pages of flames that are often exchanged over a single misinterpretation of a vague statement, because neither side wants to give an inch on even something so irrelevant.

... Which seems to be a direct result of the board's extreme culture of never admitting that one could possibly be incorrect, even when there really shouldn't be any shame involved in saying "Sorry I didn't word that better, here's what I meant, can we move on from this point that better clarifies my earlier statement?" or even flat out, "You know, I've thought about this, and even though I still don't completely agree with you, I do know why you feel the way you do. Nevertheless, your information has not given me enough reason to sway in my perspective, because we have a fundamental disparity of personal values" etc. Since for fuck's sake, typing out a concession by no means guarantees anyone actually changes his or her mind on issues like this based on being outmaneuvered once on an Internet board. That's why people's personalities seem basically static, regardless of win/loss record.

Ah, for fuck's sake, someone post a picture of a cat wrapped in a blanket with some sort of pancake reference already.

[Adrian Laguna]

But if there were no flames, what would power the steam-turbines that run SDN?

The Shep/Anti-Shep reactor.

[Surlethe]

hey that's a fine point there butlerfly, i was hell old alreadyz and down with the stylin stark situation when i started postin here, but you an ace and shizzint were in highschool... are you now an intellectual pit fighter who sees every idea as your next target, every leading question as something to be attacked?

Hells yes, the stories I could tell ... . You should check out battle scars I've got -- you doin' somethin' later, baby, or you wanna get a drink or something?

Actually, I believe Mike has commented before about how some of our members apparently can't modulate their debating outside the SDN environment. Hmmm.

Yeah, if you can't moderate your style then you have almost as much of a problem as if you're an idiot. I mean, imagine going SDN on someone's ass at a business meeting.

Edit:

[Pick]

This is true. In some sense, you're right: a lot of fun arguments (or pointless fights, depending on your point of view ) wouldn't have happened. And some of it depends on the skill level of the debaters; people who are good at debating can evaluate their opponents' positions quickly and then decide whether to pursue it or not, sort of like a grandmaster will resign several moves before it's obvious to anybody else that his position's untenable.

But in another sense, this sort of argumentative atmosphere is good at showing each argument for what it is. It's sort of like an intellectual testing-ground: ideas are thrown through the crucible of debate time and time again; if they're poor, they fail; and if they're good, they stay.

Referring back to the Greeks: it's really half content, half presentation. That's why vagueness and difficulty of communication time and time again skew the actual result of debates. Someone trips up in the way that they word a specific viewpoint, are cornered, and the debate's over before the original subject has been meaningfully explored.

If the culture is kept honest and not a circle-jerk of epic proportions, then over time the ideas and arguments should tend toward what the truth actually is.

Cool. Yeah, I don't see any assumptions there at all.

So, if done properly, the honest discourse you alluded to is exactly the debates that go on.

No, because we don't see thesis/antithesis/synthesis, which is important to refining arguments into the closest thing to truth. In the system usually evident here, one wins out, despite its flaws, because the other has been proven more incorrect. And then it ends. As the very same issue is rarely discussed in more than one thread, this beautiful allusion to a mathematical trend is moot.

The added bonus here is that since this is originally a sci-fi debate board, probably more than 80% of the board is men. That might have something to do with it.

... Bonus?

Edit- Also, to be fair, I'm probably the one to blame for the post which I'm assuming led to the OT, since this is something I've discussed before.

I thought Stark was talking about your brother's goodbye?

Right. Which is probably the result of me talking to him.

PS- The next time Valdemar bases a monetary argument on false premises, you should call him out, if you've got the time.

I did, it was ignored. So was my comment to someone else that FSLIC and the Federal Reserve are different entities with different roles in the economic crisis of the 80s. Of course, that might have been neglected because no one knows what FSLIC is. Which makes for a kind of ironic point there.

Anyway, my point's pretty clear, so I see no reason to further expand on it, especially since I don't really give a shit, considering that those who agree with me do, and those who don't don't, and that's basically where it'll stand regardless of further posting.

[Stark]

pssst it wasn't pick , just a heads up from the Starkers

I think it's interesting, because perhaps it suggests that SDN has it's very own bad debating practices. I'm not sure how to define them, however.

Pick's closing statement is pretty demoralising when talking about the culture of a board that's supposed to be honest.

[Adrian Laguna]

I really don't give a shit about the serious boards beyond merely amassing information, and certainly not enough to waste part of my very finite life arguing in the vain hope of changing the mind of someone with a flaming toaster as his avatar or something.

Changing someone's mind? In an internet forum? Now that's just silly. At best you'll influence an unformed opinion.

To me debating here is like playing a game, only we use logic instead of laser flying tanks. I sometimes just pick a position and argue it just for the sake of having an argument, not because I particularly care about that position. It probably helps that I have no "real" position on most things, as I mostly just change it to whatever suits me at any moment in time.

You do have a point about this board's culture, I take it as a forgone conclusion that I will lose. Though I do believe in one or two occasions I got a no reply, but for those it's impossible to tell if the other person lost interest or couldn't come-up with a reply.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I really don't give a shit about the serious boards beyond merely amassing information, and certainly not enough to waste part of my very finite life arguing in the vain hope of changing the mind of someone with a flaming toaster as his avatar or something.

Changing someone's mind? In an internet forum? Now that's just silly. At best you'll influence an unformed opinion.

To me debating here is like playing a game, only we use logic instead of laser flying tanks. I sometimes just pick a position and argue it just for the sake of having an argument, not because I particularly care about that position. It probably helps that I have no "real" position on most things, as I mostly just change it to whatever suits me at any moment in time.

You do have a point about this board's culture, I take it as a forgone conclusion that I will lose. Though I do believe in one or two occasions I got a no reply, but for those it's impossible to tell if the other person lost interest or couldn't come-up with a reply.

Sadly, that is true. Many people on other forums refuse to recognise that their world view is incredibly narrow and ill-informed, and regardless how much you hurl at them, they will attempt to avoid the whole contradiction entirely.

I personally gave trying to change their mind, preferring to hope that they will eventually chew on their own stupidity eventually.

[Adrian Laguna]

Changing someone's mind? In an internet forum? Now that's just silly. At best you'll influence an unformed opinion.

I think this is true of all sizeable forums. The type of discussion Pick describes as ideal is something I'd be surprised to see anywhere outside of a small and community of people. Even if it does exist in forums of a medium size, it is likely that they have a culture properly geared to the subject.

The culture that permeates all debates here is a direct result of the origins of the place. The SW vs. ST discussion was very science oriented, and it is only sensible that it was so. There are also Mike's anti-creationism efforts, which are by definition also science oriented. The thing is that the general approach, rules, and expectations that drive hard science oriented discussions, are not quite suited to the liberal arts and softer sciences. When you crank out some calculations, your premises are right or they aren't, and your number add-up or they don't. The liberal arts are rather more nuanced.

I rather like SDN, but it is what it is, nothing less and nothing more.

[Spyder]

Didn't do anything for me that wouldn't have been done by 4 years of retail.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I thought Stark was talking about your brother's goodbye?

Who?
Edit: Nevermind, I think I know what you're talking about.

[Bounty]

Since for fuck's sake, typing out a concession by no means guarantees anyone actually changes his or her mind on issues like this based on being outmaneuvered once on an Internet board. That's why people's personalities seem basically static, regardless of win/loss record.

I've stopped bothering with SDN when it comes to sensitive topics. Like people have said before, the board culture is to try and apply the conveniently black-and-white principles of mathematics on issues that really can't be expressed in a funny string of numbers. There is always the assumption that one side must hold the Absolute Truth and the other is by definition either lying or stupid, which makes for a very poor and poisonous atmosphere. As long as you're "winning" I suppose it's a barrel of laughs, but heaven help you if you aren't.

(Reminds me of this, really)

[Medic]

hey that's a fine point there butlerfly, i was hell old alreadyz and down with the stylin stark situation when i started postin here, but you an ace and shizzint were in highschool... are you now an intellectual pit fighter who sees every idea as your next target, every leading question as something to be attacked?

Actually, I believe Mike has commented before about how some of our members apparently can't modulate their debating outside the SDN environment. Hmmm.

In SLAM, yes he did.

Acting in the real world like you do hear would often be a quick way to an ass whoopin really.

[salm]

Not really. The SDN debating style doesn´t work Out There™ so there´s no point in adopting it.
It certainliy is one of the sources that makes people more skeptic and in general open to science but that´s a different point.

[Ford Prefect]

Changing someone's mind? In an internet forum? Now that's just silly. At best you'll influence an unformed opinion.

I think this is true of all sizeable forums. *snip*

Adrian, unless I'm totally insane, I'm fairly sure you just replied to yourself. Unintentionally.

[Dooey Jo]

Is it SDN's fault that you're aggressive or argumentativ

No, because I am not aggressive or argumentative. Using SDN-style tactics outside the internet is ill-advised. Just imagine you're discussing something with someone and he says something which is wrong, but doesn't understand why it's wrong, so you tell him in no uncertain terms "you fucking lying hatfucker I just fucking showed you that it's fucking wrong fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck". If you do not understand why doing such will give you a reputation of being an asshole, you should be banned from attending social situations.

[Flagg]

No, it's the fucking retard's fault that I'm agressive and argumentative. I was an agressive, argumentative prick long before I ever came to this board.

[aerius]

I blame it on my troubled childhood. Because everything can be blamed on a troubled childhood, or so TV has taught me.