I'm not going to try to argue with you. You make some good points, but when put together, they just made you seem like (as thinkingaboutit said) you have issues. You replied in a way that made you seem insecure, and for the record, you really don't need to address the people who thumbed you down by replying to yourself. They didn't agree with you, and so they gave you a thumbs down. That's why the button is there. I'm not saying that you're wrong in any way, I'm just saying that your facts could be better presented to suit the topic of discussion.
Don't argue then, just converse with me. You think that if we differ in opinions and want to talk about why we differ in opinion to try come to which conclusion is the accurate one an argument, I see it as debate, which can be calm and respectful.
I don't have "issues". I make good points, and then put them all together to come to a conclusion, which is what people do to find things out.
I have no problem with people not agreeing with me "logically", I have a problem with them disliking it just for the sake of them "not liking it", when it shows if you dissagree, then you are seen as quite idiotic.
If they didn't agfree with me, they should explain why. I gave no reason for them not to agree. Everything I said is logical. I explained how it isn't logical to go in to a certain activity, then refuse to do the things that is needed to make the activity active...How is that at all wrong? It isn't, which is why I had to address that these Emotion>logic people are being pointless.
If people can't handle facts, and need it watered down to please their little cotton socks, then they need to grow up. Boohoo to those people, a fact doesn't make you pleased? That doesn't make it any less true.
Firstly- thank you. Conversation sounds much nicer than fighting.
Secondly, while you do make good points, the way they are delivered is just as important as actual content. The way you ordered them made you sound rather like an extremist. I saw you mention in one of your polls that many people see you as self-centered, and arrogant, and I think that your presentation of facts is responsible for this, in part. Saying that enemies of logic were too unbearable for you to argue with was true, but it made you sound condescending. It's alright to be sure of yourself, confidence is a good thing on a site like this- but you can't see yourself as being above anyone on here. The best thing about the Internet is that it puts everyone on the same level. I see you as my equal. That is why we're having a conversation as opposed to a blatant argument. I know that you have enough respect to partake in this conversation. But your comment implied that you were the pinnacle of logic, that you therefore cannot be wrong, and that you are above the "unbarable" users on here.
I suppose that is true, how I deliver something is why I get the reatcion. Maybe this sounds arrogant and bigheaded, but maybe I should just accept that 98% of users on here can't handle full blown, cold facts and need it watered down for them. Again, that may sound big headed of me, but I have tried the way of just giving out full fact without watering it down, and look at the reactions I get.
I am above many people on certain subjects of debate on here, just like there are people above me in other areas of debates, or maybe in the same debates. I do see myself as a valuable piece to contribute to debates due to seeing it from a different side of things. (That is my personal belief, you may dissagree)
No, no. I am not always right. I have admitted to being wrong a lot. I would even go as far to say that I have admitted to being wrong more than most people on this site have. I am not the pinnacle of logic, far from it. Although, I value logic over emotion, so if there is a topic I am familair on, then I believe I will comment on logic rather than let emotion get involved.
When I say the "illogical" people, I mean the people that "know" they are wrong, yet still fight against something. People that have been proven wrong, asked to (respectfully) to give me a reason to take their argument seriously (reliable sources of information that back up their claim), and some can't, yet think they are still right, regardless of me giving reliable sources of information.
I think the real problem in both of our attitudes is our definitions of "truth." It's not the fact that you tell your truth that makes you seem bigheaded, it's the fact that you're convinced that you're telling only the truth. Often times, you think that you are, but your truth is different to other peoples'. You can't deny the fact that you make many generalizations, and you can't deny the fact that generalizations are only the truth some of the time.
Let me explain this through an old folktale. The leader of a land was keeping slaves, which is wrong. Someone stood up to him, bringing a number of plagues down on the land. The final plague was the murdering of an entire generation. The first plagues were warnings to the leader, but since the leader was convinced that his truth was the final truth, he hardened his heart and refused free the slaves. His pride and closed-mindedness was his downfall, leading to the death of his only son. Had be been more open about what he considered to be the "truth," then maybe he would have had the chance to save his child.
Judging from your stubborn hatred of women, I doubt that you have a child. You are probably also an atheist, which means that this folktale (which you've undoubtedly identified as the Passover story) may seem irrelevant to you. But it's very relevant. If you were willing to stop making generalizations about gender and race, and open your mind to what other people consider the truth, then maybe you could learn something.
I direct you back to your hatred of women- one reason that you have the reputation that you do is because you bring your views into topics that are barely applicable. On a poll about age and generational differences, you tried to use the situation to justify your hatred of literally half of the world's population. The reason that your comment got so many thumbs down was not because people could not take "the truth," it was because their truth was different to yours. They did not make generalizations, so they saw your comment as being closed-minded and self-centered. Your reputation is yet strengthened by how defensive you get when you get a thumbs down, or when someone contradicts you. You're almost constantly trying to make yourself the victim (you comment a lot on how heterosexual white men have fewer rights than everyone else) which is simply not true. It may seem like the truth to you, but to other people, it is not. Different versions of the truth are credible in different situations.
Don't we all believe what we see as truth as the truth? It is the reason why we see it as the truth, because we believe it to be. It would be quite weird for someone to say "This is true, but I don't believe it's true". I do know that you can see something as true yet be open to being shown wrong, which I am open to and encourage people speaking up if I am wrong. LIke I have said before, I debate to prove my point and progress if my point is wrong so that I know the actual truth.
I agree, I make generalizations. I understand that. I have a problem with mixing "alot" with most. In my experience, the things I say are true, which is why I state them. I do realize that what I experience does not equal to every other individuals actions aswell. Although, the fact that I have moved a lot is something that brings me back to the "hold on, I have moved to a lot of places, yet these generalizations I make seem to be true with the group of people I am generalizing in this area".
Personally, I don't believe I can be linked to the slave-owner in that example. I don't make the things I see as truth up due to my own pride and thought, they are encouraged through the actions of others. These beliefs I have are due to observations, not blind assumptions.
I don't hate women at all. Just because I see their gender as a group inferior to the male gender as a group does not mean I hate them. The majority of people I grew up with were females, and I liked them very much. If anything, I have been the victim of males far more than the victim of females, which is why I don't see myself as very emotional on the subject, because if I was emotional about it, I would brand the male gender evil for how many times I have been their victim since a young child.
To be honest, I'm not sure on athiesm, religion, etc. I believed in God at a young age, but I came to realize that I couldn't know life's secret, nobody can, so I don't choose to have any belief. I started to not be so sure about God's existance when I realized that the only information I have to believe he exists is the word of other people, and a book that has been changed a lot. So I don't have any belief other than I simply can't know.
There isn't more than one truth. There is the truthm then there are opinions we believe to be truth. We debate and talk about our opinions of what the truth is, and the one with more logical reasons of truth are more than likely the real truth, not just an opinion.
Yes, we all believe that our truth is the truth. But the way we handle other people's truths are different. Some people attempt to accept other people's truths, and other people simply try to convince others of his own truth. It's a matter of how open-minded different people are. What I'm trying to say is, you're often unable to see what other users see as the truth- you're often incredibly defensive of your version of the truth, and I think that you could learn a lot by relaxing, and giving up some of your pride.
That being said, I believe that we're all linked to the slave-owner in some way. You can't deny the fact that you and I are both, in some way, blinded by our pride. You're evidently very proud of being a man, since you make generalizations about women (as you said, you believe your gender to be superior to mine). I'm proud of other things about myself, which makes me biased as well. It's impossible not to be biased, since we're all human here (as far as I know). But we can all do our best not to judge people based on our own selfish pride and generalizations.
I think there is only one truth, but we as humans can never really know what that truth is. I can't necessarily see the whole truth, and neither can you. That's why we need to be able to swallow our sense of pride, and learn to take each other's truths into account. I believe that men and women are equal- I have been trying to see the world in terms of your truth, but I haven't been able to. I can't see a way in which a person's merit can be judged solely on which hormones and organs they happen to have. My truth may well still be wrong, but I've tried to accept your truth, and it just has not worked for me so far. Perhaps, if you tried to accept my truth, you could see a new way of thinking about the world; and if you can't see the way that I see, then it just means that we've got truths that can't work together. Again, I see myself as your equal, and I see the more emotional user of this site as equals as well. Because for all I know, their truths are more correct than mine. I may disagree with them, but maybe there's something I'm not seeing.
Do you have IIN enemies?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I'm not going to try to argue with you. You make some good points, but when put together, they just made you seem like (as thinkingaboutit said) you have issues. You replied in a way that made you seem insecure, and for the record, you really don't need to address the people who thumbed you down by replying to yourself. They didn't agree with you, and so they gave you a thumbs down. That's why the button is there. I'm not saying that you're wrong in any way, I'm just saying that your facts could be better presented to suit the topic of discussion.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Don't argue then, just converse with me. You think that if we differ in opinions and want to talk about why we differ in opinion to try come to which conclusion is the accurate one an argument, I see it as debate, which can be calm and respectful.
I don't have "issues". I make good points, and then put them all together to come to a conclusion, which is what people do to find things out.
I have no problem with people not agreeing with me "logically", I have a problem with them disliking it just for the sake of them "not liking it", when it shows if you dissagree, then you are seen as quite idiotic.
If they didn't agfree with me, they should explain why. I gave no reason for them not to agree. Everything I said is logical. I explained how it isn't logical to go in to a certain activity, then refuse to do the things that is needed to make the activity active...How is that at all wrong? It isn't, which is why I had to address that these Emotion>logic people are being pointless.
If people can't handle facts, and need it watered down to please their little cotton socks, then they need to grow up. Boohoo to those people, a fact doesn't make you pleased? That doesn't make it any less true.
--
nAt2017
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Firstly- thank you. Conversation sounds much nicer than fighting.
Secondly, while you do make good points, the way they are delivered is just as important as actual content. The way you ordered them made you sound rather like an extremist. I saw you mention in one of your polls that many people see you as self-centered, and arrogant, and I think that your presentation of facts is responsible for this, in part. Saying that enemies of logic were too unbearable for you to argue with was true, but it made you sound condescending. It's alright to be sure of yourself, confidence is a good thing on a site like this- but you can't see yourself as being above anyone on here. The best thing about the Internet is that it puts everyone on the same level. I see you as my equal. That is why we're having a conversation as opposed to a blatant argument. I know that you have enough respect to partake in this conversation. But your comment implied that you were the pinnacle of logic, that you therefore cannot be wrong, and that you are above the "unbarable" users on here.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I suppose that is true, how I deliver something is why I get the reatcion. Maybe this sounds arrogant and bigheaded, but maybe I should just accept that 98% of users on here can't handle full blown, cold facts and need it watered down for them. Again, that may sound big headed of me, but I have tried the way of just giving out full fact without watering it down, and look at the reactions I get.
I am above many people on certain subjects of debate on here, just like there are people above me in other areas of debates, or maybe in the same debates. I do see myself as a valuable piece to contribute to debates due to seeing it from a different side of things. (That is my personal belief, you may dissagree)
No, no. I am not always right. I have admitted to being wrong a lot. I would even go as far to say that I have admitted to being wrong more than most people on this site have. I am not the pinnacle of logic, far from it. Although, I value logic over emotion, so if there is a topic I am familair on, then I believe I will comment on logic rather than let emotion get involved.
When I say the "illogical" people, I mean the people that "know" they are wrong, yet still fight against something. People that have been proven wrong, asked to (respectfully) to give me a reason to take their argument seriously (reliable sources of information that back up their claim), and some can't, yet think they are still right, regardless of me giving reliable sources of information.
--
nAt2017
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I think the real problem in both of our attitudes is our definitions of "truth." It's not the fact that you tell your truth that makes you seem bigheaded, it's the fact that you're convinced that you're telling only the truth. Often times, you think that you are, but your truth is different to other peoples'. You can't deny the fact that you make many generalizations, and you can't deny the fact that generalizations are only the truth some of the time.
Let me explain this through an old folktale. The leader of a land was keeping slaves, which is wrong. Someone stood up to him, bringing a number of plagues down on the land. The final plague was the murdering of an entire generation. The first plagues were warnings to the leader, but since the leader was convinced that his truth was the final truth, he hardened his heart and refused free the slaves. His pride and closed-mindedness was his downfall, leading to the death of his only son. Had be been more open about what he considered to be the "truth," then maybe he would have had the chance to save his child.
Judging from your stubborn hatred of women, I doubt that you have a child. You are probably also an atheist, which means that this folktale (which you've undoubtedly identified as the Passover story) may seem irrelevant to you. But it's very relevant. If you were willing to stop making generalizations about gender and race, and open your mind to what other people consider the truth, then maybe you could learn something.
I direct you back to your hatred of women- one reason that you have the reputation that you do is because you bring your views into topics that are barely applicable. On a poll about age and generational differences, you tried to use the situation to justify your hatred of literally half of the world's population. The reason that your comment got so many thumbs down was not because people could not take "the truth," it was because their truth was different to yours. They did not make generalizations, so they saw your comment as being closed-minded and self-centered. Your reputation is yet strengthened by how defensive you get when you get a thumbs down, or when someone contradicts you. You're almost constantly trying to make yourself the victim (you comment a lot on how heterosexual white men have fewer rights than everyone else) which is simply not true. It may seem like the truth to you, but to other people, it is not. Different versions of the truth are credible in different situations.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Don't we all believe what we see as truth as the truth? It is the reason why we see it as the truth, because we believe it to be. It would be quite weird for someone to say "This is true, but I don't believe it's true". I do know that you can see something as true yet be open to being shown wrong, which I am open to and encourage people speaking up if I am wrong. LIke I have said before, I debate to prove my point and progress if my point is wrong so that I know the actual truth.
I agree, I make generalizations. I understand that. I have a problem with mixing "alot" with most. In my experience, the things I say are true, which is why I state them. I do realize that what I experience does not equal to every other individuals actions aswell. Although, the fact that I have moved a lot is something that brings me back to the "hold on, I have moved to a lot of places, yet these generalizations I make seem to be true with the group of people I am generalizing in this area".
Personally, I don't believe I can be linked to the slave-owner in that example. I don't make the things I see as truth up due to my own pride and thought, they are encouraged through the actions of others. These beliefs I have are due to observations, not blind assumptions.
I don't hate women at all. Just because I see their gender as a group inferior to the male gender as a group does not mean I hate them. The majority of people I grew up with were females, and I liked them very much. If anything, I have been the victim of males far more than the victim of females, which is why I don't see myself as very emotional on the subject, because if I was emotional about it, I would brand the male gender evil for how many times I have been their victim since a young child.
To be honest, I'm not sure on athiesm, religion, etc. I believed in God at a young age, but I came to realize that I couldn't know life's secret, nobody can, so I don't choose to have any belief. I started to not be so sure about God's existance when I realized that the only information I have to believe he exists is the word of other people, and a book that has been changed a lot. So I don't have any belief other than I simply can't know.
There isn't more than one truth. There is the truthm then there are opinions we believe to be truth. We debate and talk about our opinions of what the truth is, and the one with more logical reasons of truth are more than likely the real truth, not just an opinion.
--
nAt2017
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Yes, we all believe that our truth is the truth. But the way we handle other people's truths are different. Some people attempt to accept other people's truths, and other people simply try to convince others of his own truth. It's a matter of how open-minded different people are. What I'm trying to say is, you're often unable to see what other users see as the truth- you're often incredibly defensive of your version of the truth, and I think that you could learn a lot by relaxing, and giving up some of your pride.
That being said, I believe that we're all linked to the slave-owner in some way. You can't deny the fact that you and I are both, in some way, blinded by our pride. You're evidently very proud of being a man, since you make generalizations about women (as you said, you believe your gender to be superior to mine). I'm proud of other things about myself, which makes me biased as well. It's impossible not to be biased, since we're all human here (as far as I know). But we can all do our best not to judge people based on our own selfish pride and generalizations.
I think there is only one truth, but we as humans can never really know what that truth is. I can't necessarily see the whole truth, and neither can you. That's why we need to be able to swallow our sense of pride, and learn to take each other's truths into account. I believe that men and women are equal- I have been trying to see the world in terms of your truth, but I haven't been able to. I can't see a way in which a person's merit can be judged solely on which hormones and organs they happen to have. My truth may well still be wrong, but I've tried to accept your truth, and it just has not worked for me so far. Perhaps, if you tried to accept my truth, you could see a new way of thinking about the world; and if you can't see the way that I see, then it just means that we've got truths that can't work together. Again, I see myself as your equal, and I see the more emotional user of this site as equals as well. Because for all I know, their truths are more correct than mine. I may disagree with them, but maybe there's something I'm not seeing.