quote:Actually, the most rational choice is to simply not pick. Religion isn't an either/or choice. You have a myriad of options, one of which is "I don't know, but I want to know more."
Well, yes, it would really be a scale with many many arms, rather than just two.
quote:Yes, not knowing is scarier. And it means you don't get the support community that being part of a religion entails - but it is also the most reasonable and rational position when faced with a lack of evidence for any particular conclusion.
Well I definitely don't know. And it is scary. But I don't believe the reasonable solution to not knowing is not believing anything at all.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't believe she remained a virgin all her life
Well, she wasn't, was she. Bible clearly states Jesus Christ had brothers, Josephs and Marys children.
Some people believe that the children mentioned are Joseph's children by another wife or even cousins.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If what was being offered was "eternal life" as opposed to "immortal life" (by which I mean life outside of time, where you permanently exist in a single perfect state)... well, I'd probably take the offer but it really wouldn't be that interesting to me because everything that makes me ME has to do with a temporal, 3 dimensional existence. Entering into a singular timeless existence would be effectively killing myself and giving birth to some other entity of pure happiness.
Ok, agreed. Your distinction between immortal and eternal is useful; I was speaking of immortal life.
quote:If I were to get hit by a car right now, then given a choice "end it now, period, or accept eternal life, period," I'm not 100% sure what I would do. If in my ethereal state I still have basic survival instincts in place I might go with life because hey, survival instincts are strong.
Ok, yes, in this circumstance it is not clear what you would do. But I submit that this form of the choice is a bit unlikely. The actual choice you face is one that you make every day: Do you go on breathing, or jump off a cliff? I notice you are still here. And the choice you will face in the future is likely to be, "Do you accept this treatment for your illness, or check into a hospice?"
Now, it's true that many people do check into hospices, when the choice is between three months and six months, and the latter likely unpleasant. If the choice is three months or five years, I think most people, you included, will go for the treatment.
I think you're running into that classic fallacy of human thought, hyperbolic discounting. You just do not value "1 day of life, in 30 years" the same way you value "1 day of life, tomorrow". But 30 years from now you will; and there's no reason to believe this will change 300 years from now, should you be so lucky. The problem is more familiar in the context of credit cards and smoking, but I think it applies here. Just as with credit cards, you would do well to listen to the future version of yourself, who is stuck with the consequences of your choices: He doesn't want to pay your credit-card bill, he doesn't want to deal with the lung cancer from your smoking, and above all he doesn't want to die because you thought he would be bored.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, there are many things that have always sort of bothered me about the concept of an ever after after life. What happens to people who's first loves were killed early in their life who then marry and have a second love with someone else? What happens when all three of them are together in the afterlife again? Do they have a threesome?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, the High One himself - that's Odin to you lot - agrees with my assessment:
quote:The halt can manage a horse, the handless a flock, The deaf be a doughty fighter, To be blind is better than to burn on a pyre: There is nothing the dead can do.
That's from the Håvamål, the Speech of the High One. Straight from the horse's mouth! It's better to be alive, even blind, than dead. You wouldn't think this obvious point required divine revelation, but there you go.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: You know, there are many things that have always sort of bothered me about the concept of an ever after after life. What happens to people who's first loves were killed early in their life who then marry and have a second love with someone else? What happens when all three of them are together in the afterlife again? Do they have a threesome?
I wondered about it too. Doesnt it mean afterlife is personal? Everyone has one of his/her own? Lets leave our bodies, lets presume we are non-physical spirits in our afterlife. Then, without our bodies we are: 1) Soul. Period. 2) Soul (something constant throughout our lives) + memories + else;
1) Ok, than afterlife isnt personal, we look pretty much alike (little white things hoovering around the place) 2) Human being is different in each moment of its life, different when a child, a "grown-up" and a 90 year old dying, probably demented poor human. Which one is the one? Soul would be the bonding thing here, as a constant. But wouldnt that mean what we lived through is less important than what we became during our creation in mother's womb?
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't believe she remained a virgin all her life
Well, she wasn't, was she. Bible clearly states Jesus Christ had brothers, Josephs and Marys children.
Some people believe that the children mentioned are Joseph's children by another wife or even cousins.
Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you're running into that classic fallacy of human thought, hyperbolic discounting. You just do not value "1 day of life, in 30 years" the same way you value "1 day of life, tomorrow". But 30 years from now you will.
But the question we are asking is not "in 30 years, will I still want to be alive." First of all, we're talking about billions of years, not 30. There is no human experience that can communicate to us what we are likely to want after living billions of years. I think, in a billion years, that I would be mind-numbingly bored. It's possible that I am wrong, but it is my best guess. If I were not bored, then I would have had to have gone through so many different adjustments in my life that the person I am now would have no relation to the person I'd be then. Consequently, I feel no particular obligation to make decisions now for the benefit of that future person, any more than I'd make decisions to help any other random person.
If I were to somehow choose to believe in an afterlife for the soul purpose of making my current existence happier, I'd choose to believe in an afterlife where people have the ability to stop existing if they want. Otherwise, the afterlife is not a comfort to me, it is merely scary, because the notion of me still caring about living after 5 billion years is a bizarre alien concept that does not bring me comfort in the slightest.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, well, afterlives. I was discussing the sort of immortality that might actually be attainable in reality; and timescales of thousands of years, not millions or billions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Szymon, I am familiar with the verse in question. Neverthless, some people (given that there is always room for interpretation especially as it is a translation) believe that "brother" and "sister" in this case could mean half or step-brother or sister, adopted brother or sister, or general relative.
quote:Oh, well, afterlives. I was discussing the sort of immortality that might actually be attainable in reality; and timescales of thousands of years, not millions or billions.
Well, that was a silly sort of thing to be discussing, given that it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
I'm opposed to immortality in the attainable scale simply because it would wreck havoc on our ecosystem unless it was only available to people who didn't have children.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, okay. But there must be limits to interpretation, arent I right? Because then everything could be reinterpreted all the way and we wouldnt be sure of anything.
for those who dont like clicking the links: the word "created" in the first sentence in the Bible is thought to be mistranslated, and ought to be "separated". So God havent create all of this, you know? Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
They will give you an idea of the possible scope for interpretation.
ETA: It is important to remember when dealing with Scripture that the context is very different from our experience and that languages don't translate perfectly.
ETA: In case anyone is curious, I don't care if Mary stayed a virgin or not. Actually, I kind of hope she didn't. I am not even particularly worried about her pre-Jesus virginity. In fact, I find the preoccupation with Mary's virginity to be...well, medieval is a good word.
ETA: Okay. One more. Some context to remember when considering some of this virgin stuff is that, at the time a lot of this doctrine was being formed, the question of Jesus's divinity was disputed. A miraculous birth was evidence for the pro-divine side of the controversy.
quote:Oh, well, afterlives. I was discussing the sort of immortality that might actually be attainable in reality; and timescales of thousands of years, not millions or billions.
Well, that was a silly sort of thing to be discussing, given that it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
I'm opposed to immortality in the attainable scale simply because it would wreck havoc on our ecosystem unless it was only available to people who didn't have children.
Ok, most important objection first: One 'wreaks' havoc; verb. This may leave a 'wreck' behind; noun. Although one can also 'wreck a car', admittedly. But one cannot 'wreck havoc'.
Actually... if someone else had wreaked havoc, and I came along and restored order, then in a sense I would be wrecking the other guy's havoc. But this is clearly not the sense you want.
Then the ecosystem thing. I find your lack of faith in the ability of society to adjust to technological advances disturbing. You might as well oppose cars and contraception on the grounds that they will lead to sexual immorality unless limited to the very wealthy.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Orincoro, in the discussions I recall having with Tres he has always been perfectly reasonable and rational.
I think Tres has a way of *sounding* reasonable and rational. But then in the middle of a debate over teaching creationism in the classroom, someone posted a thread from like 3 years before in which Tres's arguments were almost identical, in which the counterarguments had all been laid out in pretty much the same way. It was not just that Tres had maintained the same beliefs, which would not be shocking, but that he had actually had the same debate, and actually managed to *seem* to learn something the first time around, only to enter into the exact same exchange again, as if from scratch. I mean, it was as if the first discussion had never happened, and he had never heard the counterarguments before. That was weird.
Tres has a way of hollowly mimicking rational thought while talking gibberish that I find more than just dumb, but actually bizarre.
For example:
quote: I'm not really confident on that. I just think its more likely that one person is confused about what they saw than that aliens are here, possess some technology like that and are intentionally hiding themselves from us while abducting people (yet are still foolish enough to leave witnesses around to ruin their attempts to remain hidden.)
See, he can form this perfectly rational thought where he applies Occam's razor to a simple situation. Very rational. Were he simply to depart from this rational approach on a matter of faith- say: "I'm aware that there is not much evidence of Jesus existing, but I have faith that it happened," I might find him the sort of animal I can dimly understand. But no, to the question of actual evidence of Jesus ever being alive, he applies Occam's Butterknife, claiming that he is inclined to believe the accounts because there is no reason *not* to believe them. He could as easily couch the evidence of Jesus having lived in the same way as aliens visiting the Earth, but he doesn't. He can apply logic to one scenario, but not the other. That's weird- it's weird partly because he is being irrational, but also because he appears to actually trust that he is applying solid reasoning in both cases.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then the ecosystem thing. I find your lack of faith in the ability of society to adjust to technological advances disturbing. You might as well oppose cars and contraception on the grounds that they will lead to sexual immorality unless limited to the very wealthy.
We are already suffering economic pressure from having large numbers of people live to their late 80s. I'm fairly confident we will adapt to that. But I am also pretty positive that it is not physically possible for humans to live thousands of years and continue to have children at the rate they do now, without destroying the earth.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. Why assume that we will continue to have children at that rate?
There is an economic argument, thus: The immortality treatment will have some cost. (I am not thinking of money, here; rather I'm saying it will require a certain amount of labour and materials.) If the population is sufficiently large, then at some point making an extra dose of immortality serum means that someone doesn't get a loaf of bread, and dies. Therefore, there exists an equilibrium, even in the presence of immortality serum, past which the population cannot go.
Now, you can certainly argue that we're more likely to approach that equilibrium in a stupid, unregulated way, overshoot, and collapse away from it, rather than a smart way, stay well under the support limit, and have no collapses. But it seems to me that we're getting better at coordination problems.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My original point was: "I'm opposed to immortality in the attainable scale simply because it would wreck havoc on our ecosystem unless it was only available to people who didn't have children."
Of course if the rate of childbirth was drastically reduced, it wouldn't be a problem. That was my whole point that you gave the impression you disagreed with.
It doesn't necessarily have to be that people who are immortal can't have kids. But if any sizeable portion of the population has a kid and then continues to live for a few hundred years, and then those kids have other kids and then live for a few hundred years, the population will explode.
If we "approach that equilibrium in a stupid, unregulated way, overshoot, and collapse away from it" I think that can be pretty clearly defined as "wreaking havoc on the ecosystem." By simple definition of what ecosystems are and what having havoc wreaked on them looks like.
The easiest way (and I think a pretty fair one) to prevent that from happening is if the immortality serum is tied with sterilization.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But then in the middle of a debate over teaching creationism in the classroom, someone posted a thread from like 3 years before in which Tres's arguments were almost identical, in which the counterarguments had all been laid out in pretty much the same way. It was not just that Tres had maintained the same beliefs, which would not be shocking, but that he had actually had the same debate, and actually managed to *seem* to learn something the first time around, only to enter into the exact same exchange again, as if from scratch. I mean, it was as if the first discussion had never happened, and he had never heard the counterarguments before.
I don't think it's irrational to, when given the same line of argument twice, respond to it in a very similar way both times. I'm pretty sure there's some issues that come up over and over on Hatrack to which I've given the same counterargument 10+ times to different people.
(As for what I learned, on the topic you were referring to what I learned the first time round was not "my line of argument is totally wrong.")
quote:
quote:I'm not really confident on that. I just think its more likely that one person is confused about what they saw than that aliens are here, possess some technology like that and are intentionally hiding themselves from us while abducting people (yet are still foolish enough to leave witnesses around to ruin their attempts to remain hidden.)
See, he can form this perfectly rational thought where he applies Occam's razor to a simple situation.
I'll leave it to everyone else to judge whether or not anything I've said is reasonable... But I will note that I wasn't using Occam's Razor in that quote. My point there was that Occam's Razor is not something I think we should use; I think it is a question to be decided by weighing the evidence, including eyewitness accounts and other evidence that is never 100% trustworthy.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: My point there was that Occam's Razor is not something I think we should use; I think it is a question to be decided by weighing the evidence, including eyewitness accounts and other evidence that is never 100% trustworthy.
It seems that you don't understand what Occam's Razor actually means. The second half of your sentence (the part about weighing evidence) does not preclude the use of Occam's Razor; on the contrary, correct application of the Razor absolutely depends on taking into account any and all evidence available.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
See, he can form this perfectly rational thought where he applies Occam's razor to a simple situation. [/QUOTE]I'll leave it to everyone else to judge whether or not anything I've said is reasonable... But I will note that I wasn't using Occam's Razor in that quote. My point there was that Occam's Razor is not something I think we should use; I think it is a question to be decided by weighing the evidence, including eyewitness accounts and other evidence that is never 100% trustworthy. [/QUOTE]
:boggle:
Tres, that was Occam's Razor. It's not like I come up to your argument and say: "he used a number 2 pencil," and you say: "no actually, it was a charcoal pencil." I know the argument you were making. You wrote it down. That you don't understand what Occam's razor is may be a different problem.
For your reference:
Occam's razor |ˈäkəmz| (also Ockham's razor) the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, that was Occam's Razor. It's not like I come up to your argument and say: "he used a number 2 pencil," and you say: "no actually, it was a charcoal pencil." I know the argument you were making. You wrote it down. That you don't understand what Occam's razor is may be a different problem.
This may be why my reasoning doesn't seem to make sense to you: I tell you what I'm arguing, but then you go on believing my argument is something else.
I did not say a thing about which option required making more assumptions, or which is simpler, or which multiplies more entities. My argument was, put very simply, I think accepting alien abductions requires rejecting more evidence/observations/beliefs I've made about the world than rejecting alien abductions would. "The principle that one should weigh evidence, and then accept the belief that has stronger evidence in its favor than it has against it" is not Occam's Razor.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ..."I'm aware that there is not much evidence of Jesus existing, but I have faith that it happened,"...
Actually, there's reasonable evidence that he existed. There's just none that he's divine.
I've had this particular debate before. There is not reasonable evidence that he existed at all- there are a multitude of people who would like very much for him to have existed, but zero primary source documents of his existence. Fine, that's fine, it's not not any different from someone who could be conjured in the same way today. 50 people write about someone as if they existed, and it's assumed they really did. Never mind whether all the writings of all those individuals was later rectified and edited to more or less (but still very poorly) document the life of a single fictive person. I never bought and I don't buy it now, and I am not ignorant of the facts of the matter.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, that was Occam's Razor. It's not like I come up to your argument and say: "he used a number 2 pencil," and you say: "no actually, it was a charcoal pencil." I know the argument you were making. You wrote it down. That you don't understand what Occam's razor is may be a different problem.
This may be why my reasoning doesn't seem to make sense to you: I tell you what I'm arguing, but then you go on believing my argument is something else.
I did not say a thing about which option required making more assumptions, or which is simpler, or which multiplies more entities.
How do you not understand the words that you yourself have written down for posterity? Really. Applying Occam's Razor does not require you to specifically talk about what Occam's Razor is. Appealing to the line of reasoning that is defined by Occam's Razor, as you undeniably DID, is :gasp: applying Occam's Razor. Seriously, talking to you becomes like trying to beat up a sofa. It just doesn't ever seem to realize what's happening- it just sits there, getting more and more sad and beaten up.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ..."I'm aware that there is not much evidence of Jesus existing, but I have faith that it happened,"...
Actually, there's reasonable evidence that he existed. There's just none that he's divine.
I've had this particular debate before. There is not reasonable evidence that he existed at all- there are a multitude of people who would like very much for him to have existed, but zero primary source documents of his existence. Fine, that's fine, it's not not any different from someone who could be conjured in the same way today. 50 people write about someone as if they existed, and it's assumed they really did. Never mind whether all the writings of all those individuals was later rectified and edited to more or less (but still very poorly) document the life of a single fictive person. I never bought and I don't buy it now, and I am not ignorant of the facts of the matter.
Thanks for getting me to look that up. You're correct, there seems to be only inconclusive evidence that he existed. Just a lot of evidence that a lot of people really, really thought he did.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously, talking to you becomes like trying to beat up a sofa. It just doesn't ever seem to realize what's happening- it just sits there, getting more and more sad and beaten up.
I've found that there are two broad ways people approach discussions like these: Sometimes a person will treat a discussion as a joint effort to talk and listen to determine some truth. Other times a person will treat a discussion as a fight, where they either beat the other guy up or get beat up themselves. Sometimes it starts as the first type but ends up as the second. I'm not really all that interested in beating anyone up, so when I end up in that second type of discussion, I think I'd usually rather be the sofa.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Personally I've only ever met one marginally intelligent person who believed in the nonsense (as I see it) of biblical creationism
What do you mean by biblical creationism...That God lived, that Jesus was literally resurrected? Is that enough to warrant the "nonsense" tag? Or do they have to also believe in the literal Garden of Eden? Or do they have to believe that there is no errors in the Bible and it is the fundamental root of all truth and science?
I am agnostic leaning atheist, but I know many Mormons (including Cards) who, if they are honest about their faith, believe in the literal resurrection and flood.
Does that mean all Mormons are at best marginally intelligent? Or are you only talking about the fraction of Christianity that are considered fundamentalist in believing there are no errors in the Bible?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
biblical creationism, underscore, as in old testament, as in genesis, as in God created the earth in seven days and the rib and the snake and the tree- that stuff.
I have zero interest in the specifics. I find literal readings, and in most cases philosophical readings of the bible to be ridiculous.
Fyi: when I say: I have only ever seen one red door on a new house, that doesn't mean I'm saying: "there are no red doors on new houses, as a rule." That's a matter that you need to work out before construing my statement as representing an argument I am not making.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously, talking to you becomes like trying to beat up a sofa. It just doesn't ever seem to realize what's happening- it just sits there, getting more and more sad and beaten up.
I've found that there are two broad ways people approach discussions like these: Sometimes a person will treat a discussion as a joint effort to talk and listen to determine some truth.
This method only works if all parties are actually making the arguments they really believe, the sources of their conclusions, and not just-so stories designed to sound nicer and more logical than the true premises.
The point of the Creation anecdote about you is that you were clearly not putting forth the arguments you truly found compelling, because after they were refuted into the ground, you didn't change your mind about the conclusions you claimed to have based on those arguments. If you had truly based your conclusions on the arguments, you would have changed your conclusions after your supporting arguments had been refuted.
This happens all the time. How many gay marraige opponants argue "I'm against gay marriage because it's not natural", and are still just as against gay marriage after homosexual relationships are demonstrated to be common in nature? It's because the "natural" argument sounds nicer and more logical than the true reason, which usually boils down to "gay people are different from me, and therefore inferior".
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: If you had truly based your conclusions on the arguments, you would have changed your conclusions after your supporting arguments had been refuted.
If and only if you accept the refutation as correct and valid.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: You seem to have zero interest in a lot of things you discuss Orincoro.
Hobbes
You seem to hide behind a wall of passive aggressive pithy commentary, without ever contributing much of anything, and you seem to get away with it because people here like you. I have an interest in this subject- I have zero interest in the specifics of the bible or in discussing them now. That is my prerogative, and you can go and stick your head in a bucket if you don't like it. It's not as though this conversation will miss your thrilling contributions, such as they are. Don't forget to smile with a sense of superiority in your response!
quote:You seem to hide behind a wall of passive aggressive pithy commentary, without ever contributing much of anything, and you seem to get away with it because people here like you. I have an interest in this subject- I have zero interest in the specifics of the bible or in discussing them now. That is my prerogative, and you can go and stick your head in a bucket if you don't like it. It's not as though this conversation will miss your thrilling contributions, such as they are. Don't forget to smile with a sense of superiority in your response!
Ori
Glad to see you've been paying attention Orincoro! I'm also impressed that you were able to discern the sense of superiority in my generic smilie that ends all of my posts, so well done there too.
I know many don't agree with the 'living-room' analogy for this forum, but I was hoping we could get behind the idea that this isn't some sort of colosseum for gladiatorial arguments. How many of these things would get said in a normal, face-to-face discussion and would be able to call it a discussion if there were or would it be a fight? This is exactly what people are talking about when they reference the decline of Hatrack and it's exactly why I rarely do make many substantial posts in threads like this. Not doing enough to get you banned isn't the same as positively contributing to the community.
quote:- Do some of you (Christians) belive in the fact that Saint Mary was indeed a virgin before the birth of her first Child and Joseph was not the genetical father? - Do you belive that three days after His death, Jesus Christ ressurected and met with His followers? As a man made of flesh?
1) I believe Mary was a virgin; I don't understand the mechanics of the event though. 2) I believe Christ was resurrected after his death and met with his followers. Again, I don't understand the mechanics involved.
quote:On one hand you have a pointless life. Obviously, you are happy about things, have your dreams you want to fullfill, live a good life, be loved and love. But than you die and are no more.
Not believing in an afterlife doesn't necessarily lead to believing that life is pointless. I think there are lots of atheists and agnostics who are genuine boons to civilization; whose meaningful lives contribute to the good of the world.
There is meaning in life, period.
quote:On the other hand you have a life, that is just a start. You fear nothing, there is He, who will help you. You will see your parents again, your spouse and children, your beloved friends. Who wouldnt want that? Thats a beautiful dream which I think belief is all about. And am sorry about it.
I wish it were that easy. Belief in the afterlife doesn't remove fear of death, necessarily-- because for most believers, when it's down to brass tacks, we don't really know.
So, for me, my faith isn't a forward-looking thing. I mean, I don't think much about my Heavenly reward or whatever. I am concerned with the here and now. I am concerned with obeying the commandments, and fulfilling God's purposes for me here in this life. DOING good brings me a lot more satisfaction than thinking about what comes afterward.
That's what I think this morning, anyway.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: This is exactly what people are talking about when they reference the decline of Hatrack and it's exactly why I rarely do make many substantial posts in threads like this. Not doing enough to get you banned isn't the same as positively contributing to the community.
So positively contributing to the community = quietly bating others while contributing little of your own voice to discussions? It's seeing someone you disagree with, and rather than engaging them on the points they make, try to needle them about not addressing the things you find important? It's then taking a high handed stance about the integrity of the community when people much less worthy than thou get annoyed at your sniping? Is that your positive contribution? Do tell.
ETA: if this were Card's living room, I wouldn't be here. He threw that baby out with the bath water a long time ago.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, how do you think you have contributed positively to the community?
Is positive contribution something you value?
Do you believe that you engage others honestly (and with respect/civility) on points you disagree with?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly yes. With respect and civility, sometimes. I don't know if on balance I've contributed more positively or negatively. That's difficult to say. I'm self aware enough to realize how I come off- unlike some who seem positively delusional about what kind of traction they might have. I'm more annoyed by the likes of Hobbes who would rather treat me like a non-entity to be dealt with than you, who are always straightforward and give at least the appearance of caring about/being engaged in a discussion. It's the high and mighty bullcrap I can't stand- that and just pure idiocy, which you don't generate.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which of your interactions on this thread would you say have been wholly positive and constructive?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orin, I'm not really sure what you're attempting to accomplish here but I don't think you're succeeding.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Maybe you should give yourself a time-out, Orincoro?
Perhaps you should stop baiting me. Perhaps we should all do a lot of things that will never come to pass.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro has a point: Neither Hobbes nor Scott are in the habit of engaging in actual discussion, as opposed to would-be funny one-liners.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
