terminally flawed discussion Something I've been wondering lately is whether I give up too easily whenever I'm involved in a flawed discussion. By flawed, I mean the kind of discussion where there's a factor involved which eliminates any chance of the discussion actually GOING anywhere. An example of an FD would be - one individual attempting to explain the moral implications of suicide, and a second individual takes the opposing side- but the replies all turn out to be a bunch of non-sequiturs. The majority of the discussion is spent micro-managing/applying patches so it all follows a logical order. Another example is - person 1 having a religious debate with person 2 ......#2 happens to be a devout and unbending fundamentalist who has no clue what any of the real teachings/meaning/history of his/her religion is, and has invented a bunch of their own wacky conclusions about it-----which they treat as fact. So my question - at what point is it appropriate to give up? What are your criteria for bailing out of a terminal discussion? What if giving up is a bad idea, do you believe a person should remain forever vigilant in attempting to prove the point?
lol, nice one. I generally bail out unless I can really burn someone, otherwise, I let the nutters go.
LOL--That is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about. I guess this means others are thinking the same thing I am.
what you decribe--domesticated om, is what my experience usually is here in this debating arena.....i could give you a thousand examples of trying to explore wid literalist religionists here, and being balnked, or them not diggin etc etc....same with other shit so what do you do? depends what mood yer in. but i oftentimes find it a worthy challenge. a) talkin here can fin tune you. encourage you re-lookin at what you yourself man bpople are NOT just what they appear as. people have depths THEy donna even know about. so to keep this in mind. hangin in there means that you may be talkin to a dept of them they aren't aware of at the time, BUT has its effect. and vice versa c)))depends what you do with trolls. either ignore or repond. alternate its up to you. what i liie about this forum is its freedom. other places will try and crush cpnflict. well even seeming conflict--verbals mind, not bloody--may have some value but finally it is up to you how you wanna play it. how you value debate. IF someone is not listening and keeps on their own trip. the game could be 'how to get thru'...what ways? and then that's the challenge isn't it?...of course YOu may be fullof shit. but usually we are coing from our view we aint aren't we..? heh so be integral about it
I thought that was called the Jan Ardena debating style Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I attempt to get something out of the experience of being here. There are lots of other things I could do with this time. If I'm not teaching or helping someone, being a good elder in some other way, learning something or getting help myself, or at the very least enjoying myself and being entertained, I've got no reason to stay.
