Arguing on the Internet
-
that may be, because English is not my native tongue.
actually, I din't mean to judge at all. I merely wanted to point out, that trying to argue the same point with two so fundamentally different approaches (science and religion) is almost impossible. religion is a believe and therefore provides no proof at all, whereas science is only based on facts. one ends where the other begins.
and the only way to lead a discussion between those two parties is if both accept the other - and even more importantly: see his own field of expertise through the others eyes to understand his arguments.so the religious person has to acknowledge, that his religion is only a theory. and there are many the like in our world. and he has no right whatsoever to call his religion the only and true one. he has to understand that his believe answers the questions that science can't yet answer. but that means that it should ideally be based on the answers science can give us today.
the scientific person on the other hand has to accept, that his science is limited in it's answers and that - theoretically - the theses of the religious person could be true (unless they conflict with each other to a ridiculous amount).
unfortunately most of the time science-person completely denies the possibility of a God (I do most of the time), whereas the religious person takes his believe for impeccable.
oh dear, I spent far too much time on this thread again... perhaps we should start another of those 'Religion / Free Will / Meaning of Life' threads...
-
Thats pretty strange. Almost more frustrating than the entrenched slag fests.[/quote]
Yes, very frustrating to see diametrical sides making kissy face, especially when it's a topic I have strong views on. Just as some people cannot debate an issue without resorting to offense, there's the opposite people who are too accomodating.
-
@unknownuser said:
Personally I find arguing on the internet pretty good fun.
I agree and we could put a stop to all these arguments if you would all just accept that I am always right. You are entitled to your opinions but deep down inside you know you are wrong.
I think so long as no malice is intended its good to discuss things.
-
Arguing on the internet can be fun if it's done as a debate, and as long as you play the facts and not the player.
Continuing the debate when you return from the pub is a no-no, alcohol and internet debate do not mix.
-
On the contrary, if everybody is drunk, it's a very level playing field.
-
Image removed
was not meant to offend.
-
There's some hope that the internet can become a democratic forum. Perhaps in some ways the leveling affect of open access and anonymity may be detrimental to civil discussion. I find the best discussion in "communities", usually of technical, and therefore more limited membership. In such a group, some sense of responsibility and personal image may help rational discourse.
I think it is great that the internet opens us to different views, voices from different ages, walks of life, nationalities, educational experience etc. However you often find that some "arguers" are not there to discuss a thesis and learn, but rather to express an opinion or point of view (sometimes over and over). It is nice to express yourself, but to make a rational argument, rather than simply blow-off steam, may be a learned skill. Once we learn to make "arguments" and not to "argue", we might be closer to a real discussion.
If we can at least refrain from the ad hominem attacks (you wankers know who you are!) it'd be a great step forward.
-
what is the point of arguing with somenone you cannot smack right on the face to prove you point?
-
Solo...with all respect that may be due. That is not an appropriate image or message.
-
@edson said:
what is the point of arguing with somenone you cannot smack right on the face to prove you point?
You want a piece of me, Mahfuz? Huh?? Well????
-
@edson said:
what is the point of arguing with somenone you cannot smack right on the face to prove you point?
That's part of the point. You can also shoot-off your mouth without fearing attack.
-
@unknownuser said:
@edson said:
what is the point of arguing with somenone you cannot smack right on the face to prove you point?
You want a piece of me, Mahfuz? Huh?? Well????
ok, let's meet outside, then. come to think of it, outside is thousands of miles away...
-
Edsun
If you pay for the train fair I can punch Stinkie for you in about 3 hours time. Stinkie I extend the same offer to you if you will pay for the flight.
-
@linea said:
Edsun
If you pay for the train fair I can punch Stinkie for you in about 3 hours time. Stinkie I extend the same offer to you if you will pay for the flight.
jon,
thanks for the offer. it's a deal. my side of the bargain is much cheaper than his. but then, i am just a poor south american boy.
(SCF is such a nice community that we are able to have fun with this kind of banter. in spite of his nickname stinkie (aka tom) is a dear distant friend, one of the many i acquired since i began visiting SCF and the podium forum. thanks to the internet and initiatives like the SCF).
-
-
A moment of insensitivity, I saw an image that was funny at first but it poked fun at mentally handicapped people.
-
@linea said:
Edsun
If you pay for the train fair I can punch Stinkie for you in about 3 hours time. Stinkie I extend the same offer to you if you will pay for the flight.
You are a gentleman, Jon. Whoever said all Brits are mentally challenged hooligans?
Be afraid, Mahfuz!
But on more serious note ... Generally, discussions here stay rather civilised. And when they become a slag fest, peace is usually restored quite swiftly. All in all, not a bad track record. Certainly not given the fact that many of us have diametrically opposed views (hi Ron!
). -
Hi stinkie.
Advertisement