But watch out if you start talking about religion or politics.
Here, heph, try this link on the Chicago a2k gathering. Hope you can make it.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=63039&start=730
hephzibah,
A2K is a lot like real life. There are groups that stick frimly together. There are those who just wander. There are the bitches and the a-holes and the smarties and the villiage idiots. There are those who geniuinly care about others and do everything they can to help. There are those who just want to insult and belittle others. There are those we can really talk to and hold an enlightening and intelligent conversation with; the kind that make you re-evaluate your values and beliefs, even if only for a minute, beacuse they make such valid and convincing points. And there are those who you just run in circles with because their arugment is always "because...that's how I feel". And then there are our resident funny men, who at first glance may seem a little rough but are really just big softies at heart.
I sincerely think that many people come here for sympathy or affermation and when they don't get it, they run away crying "meanie" and then wants the teacher to come over and take away recess privledges from someone who was just being honest and forthright. There are way to many people in this world that can't be honest and that's one of the things I love about A2K; there are bluntly honest people here. It isn't always pretty and it isn't always nice but at least it's honest and I can't respect anyone more than when they are being honest.
You'll run into your "crazies" who come on here spewing their hate and miserable little lives out for the world to see in hopes that either someone will agree with them or feel pity for them. Some of us just can't stop ourselves from jumping straight into the train wreck and it ends up getting pretty ugly sometimes.
But all in all, many of the people here on A2K are versed enough in their own beliefs to put up a pretty good argument.
Welcome and enjoy!
Bella Dea write:
A2K is a lot like real life. There are groups that stick frimly together. There are those who just wander. There are the bitches and the a-holes and the smarties and the villiage idiots. There are those who geniuinly care about others and do everything they can to help. There are those who just want to insult and belittle others. There are those we can really talk to and hold an enlightening and intelligent conversation with; the kind that make you re-evaluate your values and beliefs, even if only for a minute, beacuse they make such valid and convincing points. And there are those who you just run in circles with because their arugment is always "because...that's how I feel". And then there are our resident funny men, who at first glance may seem a little rough but are really just big softies at heart.
This characterization fits me like a "t." 
Quote:Straw Man. You affirmed your endorsement of the cited former position as opposed to the uncited latter position. Acknowledging your endorsement as presented, I asked how you were gonna go about proving such indeed was your intent. To the extent you've participated thus far in this discussion, it is apparent you have not gone; from that it may be inferred it is not your intent to go. With that, I remain waiting to see evidence of your effort toward fulfillment of the implicit challenge that you prove you do not hold any position or proposition exempt from scrutiny, analysis, and criticism.
Oh BTW Timber, at no point do I believe I ever said I was presenting any of this as the premise for discussion or debate. Which, truthfully, would make me then exempt from needing to respond to your question. However, I would like to know before I decide whether or not to indulge in such a debate what exactally it is you would like me to prove. I would like to be completely clear and for everyone else who reads or responds to this to be completely clear exactally what it is we are debating... thanks
The challenge is explicit, heph, read what is written and do as you see fit.
I'm like S.P.A.M. I stick to nothing - I should be in politics
but I'm not spam like in email! LOL
of course of you nail one of my sticks down
Quote:Straw Man. You affirmed your endorsement of the cited former position as opposed to the uncited latter position. Acknowledging your endorsement as presented, I asked how you were gonna go about proving such indeed was your intent. To the extent you've participated thus far in this discussion, it is apparent you have not gone; from that it may be inferred it is not your intent to go. With that, I remain waiting to see evidence of your effort toward fulfillment of the implicit challenge that you prove you do not hold any position or proposition exempt from scrutiny, analysis, and criticism.
Well Timber, this is my conclusion concerning the matter at hand. There is no way to prove my intent, so it would be foolish for me to try. Because talk as I might, till I'm blue in the face even, if you or anyone else
chose to believe that my intent is not what I say it is then my words are in vain and I have done neither of us any good.
You mischaracterize, or at the very most charitable misperceive, the actuality; the challenge at discussion has nothing to do with "intent" or "claims", yours or anyone else's, it is that you demonstrate you do not hold any position or proposition exempt from scrutiny, analysis, and criticism. Your latest reply strongly implies that challenge is being unmet.
Miss Eppie, it would help if you know that not long before you arrived at this site, certain self-professed christian members began to aggressively assert that their beliefs are off-limits, and should never be brought into disrepute, belittled, scorned . . . in short, those beliefs should be off-limits. The more pushing type became militantly hostile on the subject.
Many of us here, and this includes some at least nominal christians, became quickly tired of this nonsense, and are equally aggressive in pointing out that any point of view or belief set is fair game for debate here.
timberlandko wrote:You mischaracterize, or at the very most charitable misperceive, the actuality; the challenge at discussion has nothing to do with "intent" or "claims", yours or anyone else's, it is that you demonstrate you do not hold any position or proposition exempt from scrutiny, analysis, and criticism. Your latest reply strongly implies that challenge is being unmet.
In reference to the above comment:
I said:
Quote:Yes timber that is what I meant. If it were the latter, I would be best to just go because debate is debate no matter how you sum it up.
And you said:
Quote:I asked how you were gonna go about proving such indeed was your intent.
So who then is "mischaracterizing, or at the very most charitable misperceiving" what here?
A2k rules are very simple on debate: if you post your opinion on any topic, be ready to be challenged. Screaming "foul" does not work here.
I have personally been challenged more times than I care to remember.
heph, to labor the point, the challenge is that you demonstrate you do not hold any position or proposition exempt from scrutiny, analysis, and criticism. Your most recent reply yet again strongly implies that challenge is being unmet.
Setanta wrote:Miss Eppie, it would help if you know that not long before you arrived at this site, certain self-professed christian members began to aggressively assert that their beliefs are off-limits, and should never be brought into disrepute, belittled, scorned . . . in short, those beliefs should be off-limits. The more pushing type became militantly hostile on the subject.
Many of us here, and this includes some at least nominal christians, became quickly tired of this nonsense, and are equally aggressive in pointing out that any point of view or belief set is fair game for debate here.
Setanta, thank you. I do not have a problem with bringing my beliefs to be questioned or debated. However, I believe it is wrong to belittle or scorn the person behind the beliefs simply because they do not agree or cannot, in the mind of those questioning the belief, prove what they say. To belittle the argument is one thing. To belittle a person is another. Timber, in this case, started out his request with an accusation. Calling me a strawman. Which to me says, "I have made my decision already about her and how she presents herself." Therefore, nullifying everything I would say in his mind before I even say it. So all my words would be in vain. It is in a case like this that I will not put myself in the position to debate.
Timber wasn't calling you anything, Miss Eppie. Strawman refers to your argument--a strawman argument is a case in which someone claims their debate opponent has a certain point of view which that person does not in fact have. Then that argument is demolished by the first person, as though they have demolished their opponent's argument--it's something they create which they consider easy to knock down, hence a strawman. A strawman fallacy is what Timber was referring to--he contended that you had willfully or mistakenly mischaracterized a position in debate in order to be able to refute it. He was not calling you any names.
Sometimes the belittles are deserved when the poster is challenged, then responds with "I have a right to my feelings/belief" without addressing the challenge. Then turns around and posts sweet nothings as if that is sufficient to ignore the issue being addressed.
It will not work as a pacifier with most posters on a2k - as it shouldn't.
It seems to work quite well on one thread I know.
