Heaven - A Fool's Paradise - DPChallenge Forums

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

06/22/2010 07:07:12 PM · #351

Originally posted by Louis:

That's just not fair. It seems to me that good arguing only becomes "tricks" and "tactics" when one has no defense against it.

Well, I certainly don't have a lot of defense against arguing minutiae, changing the subject, deflecting questions. It only raises my BP.

The arguing isn't apparently that good if I don't get the point. Recall, as far as my intelligence, I'm, at the very least, not being called a meathead. (I don't know where that leaves me. Perhaps I really am a meathead, but nobody's calling me that. Perhaps I'm a half step above meathead status. Perhaps I'm intelligent.)

Message edited by author 2010-06-22 19:08:14.

scarbrd

Leica M10

06/22/2010 07:13:41 PM · #352

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by scarbrd:
For me the interesting part is that Mormonism is it is one of the few world religions that was founded in the last 200 years. All of its unique scriptures can be scrutinized from the original texts... virtually all of the dogma can be held up to the cold light of day.

Yet 5.6 million people are believers as of 2004.

One of the 4 Canons is called the Pearl of Great Price. One of the 5 sections is call The Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham results from Egyptian papyri which were bought by Joseph Smith, which he claims to have translated. (the purchase of the papyri in an interesting story all by itself).

Two points of interest:

1. Smith (being and Seer) translated the Egyptian characters at a time when no one else could as the Rosetta stone had not been discovered.
2. The papyri was "lost" at some point after his translation. This meant that it couldn't be verified after the discovery of the Rosetta stone.

Then in the 1960s, the papyri was found in the Metropolitan Museum in New York. According to the book by Martha Beck, the Smith translation left a lot to be desired, almost comical at times.

I mean no disrespect to Mormons or Mormonism. this is just one example of how "Devine" interpretation can get you into trouble if the original source is available for validation. A am sure this is explained is some convincing way by the Mormon church, at least convincing to the believers.

I would love to be able to compare the original biblical texts to the modern day versions.

06/22/2010 07:49:40 PM · #353

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Arguing for arguing's sake can be fun, but it can be frustrating as well if your opponent is better at tricks of argument and tactics of frustration rather than an actual back and forth of ideas.

Do tell. I enjoy discussing alternate opinions and ideas, but responses of pure fallacy don't leave much room for a viable exchange.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

06/23/2010 01:16:30 AM · #354

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Arguing for arguing's sake can be fun, but it can be frustrating as well if your opponent is better at tricks of argument and tactics of frustration rather than an actual back and forth of ideas.

Do tell. I enjoy discussing alternate opinions and ideas, but responses of pure fallacy don't leave much room for a viable exchange.

Now if people wanted to have a real debate. That might be fun. Opening statments, rebuttal, closing statements. No linking. 25 lines max for each post. No interference from outside sources. Topic determined at the start. That might be constructive.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

06/23/2010 03:29:20 AM · #355

You may say this is not an argument, but you can't have your money back.

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/23/2010 04:18:12 AM · #356

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by crayon:
and i refuse to let my life being run by a group of religious freaks who tells me what i can or cant do ;)
What about government freaks? Can they tell you what you can and cannot do?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

What about parental freaks? Spousal freaks? Department-head freaks? Professorial freaks (if you're in college) or Kiddygarten freaks (if you're in Kindergarten)?

Can anyone tell you what you can and cannot do?

urm guys.... just because i refuse to let religious freaks run my life, doesn't mean i have problem with everyone else running my life :) i always wake up in the morning, and start my day according to what my horoscopes say.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

06/23/2010 06:22:31 AM · #357

quote=crayon]and i refuse to let my life being run by a group of religious freaks who tells me what i can or cant do ;) [/quote]

Originally posted by David Ey:

[What about government freaks? Can they tell you what you can and cannot do?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by crayon:

I'm glad you said this.......that whole "just because this, then this must be true" in these Rant threads seems to take on a life of its own.

Sometimes, just what's said is what's meant, without the headlong extrapolation.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

06/23/2010 01:05:32 PM · #358

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Arguing for arguing's sake can be fun, but it can be frustrating as well if your opponent is better at tricks of argument and tactics of frustration rather than an actual back and forth of ideas.

Do tell. I enjoy discussing alternate opinions and ideas, but responses of pure fallacy don't leave much room for a viable exchange.

Now if people wanted to have a real debate. That might be fun. Opening statments, rebuttal, closing statements. No linking. 25 lines max for each post. No interference from outside sources. Topic determined at the start. That might be constructive.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

Opening Statement Affirmative
Opening Statement Negative (and first address of affirmative)
First Affirmative rebuttal
Negative rebuttal
Second Affirmative rebuttal

I'm not sure cross examination would work in a thread format.

Think about it. No place to hide or redirect or obfuscate in this format.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

06/23/2010 05:08:25 PM · #359

Problem with debate under rules, of that nature, is that it then basically comes down to who has more charisma. Which, of course, is a ridiculous reason to get people to believe you. I don't prescribe to that sort of debate. Never have, never will. Presidential debates are one of the most glaring examples of such a thing.

It's also no surprise that they are highly regarded by religious individuals and organizations, since religion and faith is basically dependent on charisma and sleight-of-hand to keep people in the fold.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

06/23/2010 05:30:04 PM · #360

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I've gotta disagree. If formalized debate is dependent only on charisma, as you say, what is informalized debate dependent on? Charisma?

While I can't say Presidential debates are very helpful, I think it may be enjoyable in forums like this where people could discuss a host of things. I say it would beat the cacophany of multiple parallel discussions interrupted regularly by sidetrack questions. What's the downside? At worst it's no better.

I see there are no takers though. I'm not super surprised although I had hoped somebody would be honest enough to give it a go. Where's Louis? He busted on me for not "countering" Shannon's argument. Now that I offer in a formalized way, it's no longer fun?

scarbrd

Leica M10

06/23/2010 05:36:15 PM · #361

You guys realize that now you're debating debating, right? ;-)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/23/2010 05:38:49 PM · #362

Originally posted by scarbrd:

You guys realize that now you're debating debating, right? ;-)

I doubt it...

R.

06/23/2010 05:41:00 PM · #363

Originally posted by scarbrd:

You guys realize that now you're debating debating, right? ;-)

ROFL!

06/23/2010 05:43:25 PM · #364

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm not super surprised although I had hoped somebody would be honest enough to give it a go.

Nobody's stopping you from addressing any of the dozens of questions you've sidetracked or avoided with a straight answer.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

06/23/2010 05:59:10 PM · #365

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not super surprised although I had hoped somebody would be honest enough to give it a go.

Nobody's stopping you from addressing any of the dozens of questions you've sidetracked or avoided with a straight answer.

So you are up for a go?

Louis

Nikon D800

06/23/2010 06:18:52 PM · #366

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Where's Louis? He busted on me for not "countering" Shannon's argument. Now that I offer in a formalized way, it's no longer fun?

This is also one of the many fallacies you routinely commit. You ascribe a position to a perceived opponent, then attack it.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/23/2010 06:22:32 PM · #367

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where's Louis? He busted on me for not "countering" Shannon's argument. Now that I offer in a formalized way, it's no longer fun?

This is also one of the many fallacies you routinely commit. You ascribe a position to a perceived opponent, then attack it.

Usually because there is a pregnant silence. You could just answer my question. You wanna go?

Message edited by author 2010-06-23 18:22:53.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/23/2010 07:06:35 PM · #368

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where's Louis? He busted on me for not "countering" Shannon's argument. Now that I offer in a formalized way, it's no longer fun?

This is also one of the many fallacies you routinely commit. You ascribe a position to a perceived opponent, then attack it.

Usually because there is a pregnant silence. You could just answer my question. You wanna go?

Maybe you should just start a new thread with very simple instructions where only one question gets asked at a time and we don't move on until an answer is made to the satisfaction of the questioner. If it's not satisfactory then the questioner can ask a more specific question for clarification or explain why the answer doesn't logically follow. Fallacies are not allowed and that includes appealing to authorities like Wiki, the Bible or your favorite philosphers. If the answer is logically valid the questioner must accept it and move on.

ETA: Perhaps start with just yes or no questions. Real simple. That way no assumptions are made regarding other questions that haven't been asked.

Message edited by author 2010-06-23 19:08:43.

06/23/2010 07:21:19 PM · #369

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where's Louis? He busted on me for not "countering" Shannon's argument. Now that I offer in a formalized way, it's no longer fun?

This is also one of the many fallacies you routinely commit. You ascribe a position to a perceived opponent, then attack it.

Usually because there is a pregnant silence. You could just answer my question. You wanna go?

Maybe you should just start a new thread with very simple instructions where only one question gets asked at a time and we don't move on until an answer is made to the satisfaction of the questioner. If it's not satisfactory then the questioner can ask a more specific question for clarification or explain why the answer doesn't logically follow. Fallacies are not allowed and that includes appealing to authorities like Wiki, the Bible or your favorite philosphers. If the answer is logically valid the questioner must accept it and move on.

ETA: Perhaps start with just yes or no questions. Real simple. That way no assumptions are made regarding other questions that haven't been asked.

I think your idea and mine are similar. I don't think the Q&A format works because of time (which is why I took out the cross-examination part of the traditional LD debate). If you had to take a dozen questions to get a portion of your point across, how long would that take? I DO think we should start a new thread, but there still don't seem to be any takers on any topics.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/23/2010 07:21:54 PM · #370

Originally posted by yanko:

If it's not satisfactory then the questioner can ask a more specific question for clarification or explain why the answer doesn't logically follow. Fallacies are not allowed...

Like a duel at 20 paces after one side empties the bullets from his gun.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/23/2010 07:51:38 PM · #371

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If you had to take a dozen questions to get a portion of your point across, how long would that take?

How long has this thread taken? If we get even one question answered to satisfaction would it not trumph the success of this one?

06/23/2010 08:12:04 PM · #372

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you had to take a dozen questions to get a portion of your point across, how long would that take?

How long has this thread taken? If we get even one question answered to satisfaction would it not trumph the success of this one?

Actually it sorta seemed like we came to some consensus about the creation of matter. Sorta. ;) But your system is really no different than what we are currently doing except somehow only one person is supposed to be asking questions. LD debate forces both sides to construct an argument and defend it rather than just taking potshots with your rifle from the rocks above.

Message edited by author 2010-06-23 20:12:14.