|
| Thread: The Death - I suggest a challenge |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 26, 2008 02:31 AM |
|
|
No, wait, none of this part counts. Everything including and after my post where I said that I'm giving up on these discussions (though apparently I'm not able to) doesn't count. When we agree to restart, we'll restart.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted July 26, 2008 10:16 AM |
|
|
Why don't you just restart now? I mean, this thread really has turned into yet ANOTHER quote war between you two which was the complete opposite of what this thread was supposed to be.
By the way, Mvass, I noticed that you replied with "..." to my post. Why is that? You seem to have a pretty good time just making quote wars all the time and starting the same old stuff we have been getting used to for a while now, yet you can't respond to someone like me when I try and tell you that you should just stop the quote wars and tried getting you to realise that what you were doing was the opposite of this threads objective? You are taking this wayyyyy too seriously and personally. Maybe you should just chill out.  
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 26, 2008 01:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But the child is, more or less, just like the mother. How can a person own another person? But nature, on the other hand, is an abstract concept. Certainly people are not abstract concepts.
It's not really like a normal "human" since a child is usually innocent and all that 
But I don't have any army left so I'll have to retreat from this thread
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2008 05:08 PM |
|
|
William:
...
Actually, I think that you were right in what you said, and I didn't have anything to responnd to. But it seems that TheDeath is retreating for now. We'll continue this later.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted August 28, 2008 05:25 PM |
|
|
If you two need to continue your "debating" do it here.
Thanks.
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 28, 2008 05:26 PM |
|
|
|
No thank you Pan, I'm out of it anyway. Honestly.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2008 05:32 PM |
|
|
Since Pan got mad  let us continue our debate here.
Quote:
No mvass, that black people example is the SAME example all over again.
And yet you refuse to tell me why you think it's wrong.
Quote:
If you do yourself a favor and search in the OSM where I gave the bee example, you actually said "Now I see what you are trying to talk about. But yet a bee society would be impractical" or some other nonsense, because you couldn't find arguments.
I will tell you a very simple reason why the bee society isn't as good as a society that engages in rational self-interest: because people know what they want. The previously mentioned beggar knows that he wants the $100 more than the $10. Also, such a bee society would be impossible, since humans don't have a hive mind.
Quote:
how are you different than a selfish person? By not being selfish.
Obviously. But that doesn't mean that you're better.
Quote:
also I see you change your views every day, so probably you'll realize sooner or later what I say.
How am I changing my views?  Also, if I am, when I see something wrong with them, I correct them. How about you?
Also, I'd really like for you to respond to this:Quote:
Er... no. I mean, this may be true to a certain extent, but most of the time it's the other way around: the strong can take over the weak because they are weak, but they are not weak because they can be taken over. Just take a group of equally weak people (though that's hard to measure) and a group of equally strong people (the strong group being stronger than the weak group). You will see quite a difference, even when none of them are strong enough to take over any of the others. The main difference between a strong person and a weak person - the difference that creates all others - is that strong people do their best to solve their problems by themselves, while weak people are emotional, cry, and try to get other people to do it for them.
Finally, I must say that despite however it may seem, I enjoy our debates. If you don't, I apologize. Come on. It's no fun when you give up.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted August 28, 2008 05:49 PM |
|
|
Since you seem to misunderstand Mvass, let me explain further.
When you choose to take a thread offtopic, and engage only one member in a debate - you drive away any new posters that may have been interested in the topic, as well as discourage anyone else from joining in.
The main part of the problem is that you tend to do this rather regularly, and the discussion seems to be the same thing over and over.
I am not trying to stop you two from debating with each other, nor do I want either of you to stop participating in other threads. I am simply asking that you respect the other members, and keep your 1 vs 1 discussions from overtaking other threads.
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2008 05:55 PM |
|
|
I don't try to stop any other members from engaging in a debate. All they have to do is jump in. I'd like to see more people debating besides just me and TheDeath. It'd make a nice change. Look at Asheera. She joined the debates, and it became more fun. Other members can do so as well. Just look at I Gave up on Believing in God in its glory days. Quote wars were not uncommon, but there were many members participating, and the thread was great. And the topic of a thread rarely stays constantly the same. For instance, a thread about the existence of God may turn into a discussion about evolution. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as there's an orderly and meaningful transition between the topics.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 28, 2008 05:59 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:02, 28 Aug 2008.
|
Quote:
Finally, I must say that despite however it may seem, I enjoy our debates. If you don't, I apologize. Come on. It's no fun when you give up.
The thing is, mvass, that I visit other forums as well, where I can debate civilized with guys like Corribus or Jolly Joker (no, Corribus isn't there, but people have his "style") and my point doesn't get wasted in previous pages for the next 5 to return back to the original question.
That's like asking the question: "Why did the chicken cross the road?", people providing arguments etc... and then change the main point into the "Which was first? The chicken, or the egg?", and somewhere later, 1-2 pages forward, the OP asks again the first question:
"Why did the chicken cross the road?" -- so the whole thing repeats itself
well not as extreme but you get the idea.
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted August 28, 2008 06:03 PM |
|
|
I agree that threads will naturally evolve in time, that's always been the case. However what I see quite often lately is that 1 general theme/topic tends to seep into every thread, and they all merge into one thing.
In example, the whole reason I asked that you stop this time is because you're engaging in the same debate that you've had in another thread. TheDeath even made references to what he said earlier on the topic elsewhere.
Its easy enough, when you have a specific thought on your mind that you would carry it with you into different threads - what I'm trying to discourage is having all threads turn into the same thing.
Keeping diverse topics, makes things interesting.
As for engaging other members, I do believe that you would honestly prefer to debate with more people, I'm sure you'd enjoy debating with anyone/thing that you could get to sit with you long enough to do a marathon in quoting.. but you need to understand that not everyone sees that.
If for example, theDeath post - then several other people post, then you reply quoting every second thing thedeath said, and skipping out on everyone else, they will feel excluded.
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2008 06:05 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
The problem often is that we start discussing a point, and then we start discussing a related point, and when I finally make a good argument in the related point, you jump back into the main point and then it all repeats again. Of course, I am guilty of this as well. But I can't help but feel that you are not trying to respond to my points adequately. You don't go as far as some others and call me "sick" , but I think that we're equally guilty for our cyclical discussions. However, when I bring up an old argument in a different context, you just claim that I'm going in circles, which I'm not.
Pandora:
Quote:
If for example, theDeath post - then several other people post, then you reply quoting every second thing thedeath said, and skipping out on everyone else, they will feel excluded.
Ah, I see what you mean. But usually when I don't respond to something, that either means that I agree with it or just don't have much to say on the subject. Thus, it may seem that I'm excluding them, when I'm actually not.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 28, 2008 06:15 PM |
|
|
As far as I know, you're the one with "quote wars" that lose the points, so of course I don't reply to your arguments as I should, simply because they are mostly off the point -- they are off the point BECAUSE you replied to a DIFFERENT context than what I had in mind. For example, in the chicken example, let's say I started with "Why did the chicken cross the road?".
Then you quote some parts, etc... and it turns into a "Which was first? The chicken, or the egg?". However next I'm trying to clarify my point. Then you use arguments for the LATTER question -- of course I don't reply to it since it's OFF THE POINT (regarding my original question).
Also when I discussed with Corribus in the God thread it went well. In fact, like I said before, I'm visiting some other forums (sometimes we have debates in programming forums --> off-topic section) and they are rarely turning into quote wars. Even if so, they get back to the point quickly.
So I have to mention that you, and GOW in CH (which is worse than you btw) are the ones that mark a discussion as "off the point" and "quote war nonsense".
And yet i am guilty because I reply in your fashion, trying to get the point back. Now i see it's a pointless attempt. Thus to prevent myself from getting dirty again, I will not go into it again.
Quote:
You don't go as far as some others and call me "sick"
lol I'm not GOW I always like philosophical debates and I know you have to use arguments in your posts. I don't call anything "silly", "childish", "sick" or otherwise without providing arguments. Sure I can call ideas "primitive" and "savage" and "barbaric", but I don't simply just do that -- I explain why (this means with arguments; note that's what they are, just arguments, nothing else).
Well if you take a look at the volume of my posts compared to GOW or others (and even you most times), you'll realize that I write a lot more, because I try to give up arguments in vain it seems. 
anyway I'm kinda busy right now so...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2008 06:22 PM |
|
|
You try to clarify your point. I say that your clarification is flawed. So it turns into a discussion about the clarification until it returns to the main point. It's still on the main point, just branched off. When we discuss "chicken or egg" it's still relevant to "chicken crossed the road", but I'm just trying to explain the flaws in your reasoning.
Also, many others besides you and Corribus participated in IGUOBIG.
Also, I'll be honest. I don't mind quote wars one bit, personally. The only downside I see in them (besides making topics harder to read) is that they discourage other members from joining in. And that's a major flaw. But when we're having an active debate, I don't mind quote wars, because the various points get separated and are discussed separately. Then, when one of the points is debated enough, it stops being discussed, while the other points can go on. So I don't mind if you reply with quote wars. Let's just try to keep them to a manageable level.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 12:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You try to clarify your point. I say that your clarification is flawed.
You realize how foolish this sounds? I mean, when you ask "What do you mean by xyz" and then I try to clarify it so you can understand, then you can't possibly say that my clarification is flawed after you understood.
What can be flawed however is after you put all the pieces in context (and with this, the newly acquired knowledge about xyz, well what I meant with it anyway). That's like saying that the clarification for example:
xyz = fire in my book
then you say this clarification is flawed, seriously.
maybe the main point was flawed (let's say it said that xyz is a solid, thus fire is a solid, so my point would have been flawed, but NOT my clarification).
This proves you don't even know what you're talking about.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 03:00 PM |
|
|
I say "W is good."
You say "W is not good. W is/isn't like X."
I say "That's a ridiculous comparison. W is nothing like/is like X because Y."
You say "It's not a 1-to-1 analogy."
I say "Your analogy doesn't work."
You say "You don't want to debate seriously."
Or the other way around. For example, I give you the computer example, and you say that it's not a 1-to-1 analogy because the computer is a personal possession. I say that the computer can also be a means of production. You gave me some vague and semi-on-topic response.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 03:02 PM |
|
|
So the conclusion:
You two just stop arguing and ignore each other
____________
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 03:04 PM |
|
|
Haha, nice one Asheera. I completely agree.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 03:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So the conclusion:
You two just stop arguing and ignore each other
I'm not sure you'd want that. Maybe I'd start having massive quote wars with you instead.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 03:07 PM |
|
|
Analogies are never 1-to-1, that's why they're analogies. Otherwise, they are called 'comparisons'. You don't reply to them because you don't have arguments or a clue how to counter it -- and then use the "the analogy is flawed because it's not 1-on-1 comparison". In other words: "the analogy is flawed because... it's an analogy".
This proves your ignorance to my posts:Quote:
I say that the computer can also be a means of production.
So what? As long as you don't hire workers to work on your computer. If you do "hire" them, you don't do it the "business" way. You can say "Hey bro, wanna find me that file on the net? I give ya 5 dollars" -- this is not employment, get serious.
And no, in such a case (when you actually HIRE them), you're viewing it from capitalist viewpoints -- of course you CAN do it as long as you're hired by a capitalist! This is the problem -- you're viewing my system from your system's eyes. Not healthy for a discussion.
|
| |
|
|
