I actually find myself collapsing trivia and Collostimal "stinkers" every morning. If Im gone a few days, the trivia makes the inbox of new posts look like a telephone book.
With the previous format I would only browse certain categories, so I never saw any trivia posts and I rarely got involved in any political threads. But now I see those things all the time and sometimes get involved.
I also noticed that many good topics are left without any other posts as they
simply drift onto page two too fast and are forgotten before they even get
a chance to be discussed.
Diest TKO wrote:
It is not the sole reason why I am here map, but don't be obtuse, agreeing on basic facts is requisite in discussion. If people aren't willing to admit to these things when placed in front of them, we can't get to our real destination in debate.
If Fox says she didn't say something, and someone quotes her to prove it, should Fox pretend she didn't say it? Do you not believe people should have to defend or retract their statements? Do you find it acceptable to simply ignore this kind of thing?
I often ignore those kind of things. I don't think it adds to the debate. If you think she's wrong, and you post evidence/proof that she's wrong, then your job is done. There is no need to convince her that you've won, or to keep going on and on and on trying to convince her that you've won.
And surely, these instances shouldn't carry across multiple un-related threads (as they tend to do now).
Diest TKO wrote:
I see you challenge plenty of people on their points and you ask plenty of questions. You do this more than you are admitting, and you're inflating what I'm saying I want. I just what someone to honestly admit when they are wrong and presented with the proof. I want that, not for a trivial reason, but because how else con we proceed past that point?
I do challenge people. And I ask questions. I even prove people wrong. What I don't (at least, very rarely) do is ask them to admit they are wrong (really, I don't care). And I've never spent pages and pages and pages trying to do so.
Once you've proven someone to be wrong you can proceed from there. Silence is agreement. If they thought your proof was incorrect, they would challenge you on it. If that person posts the same garbage again, you can prove them wrong again. All the wile, you can do this in a respectful way.
Diest TKO wrote:
It isn't arrogant or disrespectful to call someone out when they double talk, lie, misrepresent something, make something up, or are being stubborn in light of being proven wrong. It's not uncommon for someone here to request proof of something. If I say something, and someone challenges it, then I go and fetch the proof, damn straight they should recognize that.
Nobody has any obligation to recognize that. Nor is recognition of proof required in a debate. If you present proof, and it goes unrebutted, you win. You don't need the challenger to admit you've won, and you damn sure don't need to spend pages and pages telling them to admit you won.
I'll make it simple for you. If you challenged someone, and they provided proof you where wrong, what would you think is the mature thing to do. In your words, describe how you would address this (if you would) and your reasoning. I think you care more than you admit on this.
I would generally admit I was wrong (and have done so). I have also left someone's rebuttal go un-rebutted which, as I've mentioned, is generally regarded as an admission that the argument is over, and that I'd lost.
And yes, I plan to, and hope I do live up to these standards. I have little doubt that I won't and I've finally figured out a good use for the 'ignore' button. Those posters who tend to drag conversations into this realm of discourse (and sometimes me along with them) will be added to the ignore list and forgotten.
maporsche wrote:Once you've proven someone to be wrong you can proceed from there. Silence is agreement. If they thought your proof was incorrect, they would challenge you on it. If that person posts the same garbage again, you can prove them wrong again. All the wile, you can do this in a respectful way.
Map, if this actually played out, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This IS how it should be, but it is not. How many times is it reasonable to have to prove something?
Well, if you toss enough pebbles into a pond, you are entitled to an occasional ripple. If you never get one, you eventually quit tossing pebbles. I'm nowhere close to that point. I hope you are not, either.
I've been wondering of late whether or not to stay engaged in A2K.
It's pretty clear that it has become an overwhelmingly left-wing forum, but I don't think that's, necessarily, a reason to opt out.
It's also clear that there are a handful of jackasses who prowl this forum and who prefer to engage in personal attacks rather than debate ideas. Again, not, necessarily, a reason to opt out.
I admit that a great many of my posts serve no purpose other than to focus my view on a subject, but I do enjoy it when there is a serious response (kudos to Robert Gentel, engineer, freeduck, Diest and even ebrown. I'm sure there are others I'm not acknowledging and so apologize to them)
I've tried to refrain from the back and forth with A2K snot-noses, but admit I've not been anything approaching perfect in this resolve. Sometimes these wankers just push me over the edge.
I've been around since "the flood". I have seen some major changes in the way people relate to one another. Yeah, there were always hotheads who spewed invective, but I think that I am perceiving the taking of sides, "ours" and "yours".
In politics, I think that anyone who spews any party line, chapter and verse, is a fool. No one but an unthinking automation could possibly agree 100% with a party, or a politician's agenda. In my case, I have some strong positive beliefs with the right on some issues, and the left with others.
I think that some of the political ideas proffered here are not dissimilar to the mindset of fundamentalist religions.
I freely admit that whether or not I remain engaged in A2K has virtually nothing to do with its sustainability and the question of whether or not I do, is meaningful to myself alone.