I don't give base? Have you read my replies?
Yes, I've read your replies, and you don't give me a base to start explaining from.
Seriously ask anyone on here as to how I cover my basis with everything I say in terms of discussion.
That doesn't give me a base.
Right now the only thing I'm not doing is copypa the posts where you do the things I state, as I find no reason to.
So, still no base.
Her replies to me are filled with how I'm wrong, because I said her idea is stupid.
You're fabricating this.
If you believe I did so, you are misinterpreting something. Or, you may be constructing a half-truth out of something.
Uh... aren't you just repeating my point?
No, I'm repeating sysadmin. (Addressed in next paragraph.)
I'm not arguing to win an argument... I'm arguing to set people straight
How is "setting people straight" any different from winning an argument?
I usually only reply to things, and usually only when someone says something incorrect.
Someone being incorrect is often only an opinion. Very few things are fully "correct" or "incorrect" (ie "white" or "black"). Most things are shades of gray.
The only time in interject my opinion otherwise is when someone asks me to do something.
Unless you're dealing with artificial definitions or historical facts, most assertions of correctness are opinions at one level or another. Even artificial definitions and historical facts can be debated.
See, it's you that don't understand my position. You act as if I do this to get my jollies out of people by winning online arguments. If that really were the case, I would be ignoring people.
No, it is logically not possible to win an argument by ignoring people. You cannot win if you don't play. You said that you are in it to "set people straight". I see no difference between "setting people straight" and "winning the argument".
And no. it's not just to "exchange ideas". It's to exchange ideas that are legitimate. Incorrect ideas, or misled viewpoints should be "righted".
You cannot know if an idea is legitimate or incorrect if you immediately decide it's stupid without giving it a chance. You immediately called me stupid and tried to "set me straight" for saying that there's no gold backing up paper money, but that's a historical fact, so you can actually be wrong about that.
a "possible" idea.
I think it's useful to keep in mind and listen to idealistic possibilities. It gives people a goal to strive for. I think it's good to believe in the possibility of a better future. Sure, we don't know how to get from our current world to one where there are so many resources that money isn't a problem, but it's a nice concept, and I think it's worth discussing. Over time, if the conversation keeps coming up, if enough people keep an open enough mind about it to exchange possibilities, maybe someone would figure it out. People dared to dream that slavery would go away, that women would be full members of society, that we can instantly communicate with each other from the other side of the world, and over time, things came together, and it has all happened. Going back in time and telling people about such things would be met by lots of people who scoff at the ideas as stupid. I imagine a lot of slave owners probably believed that the economy would collapse or something if they didn't have slaves.
Otherwise anyone can say anything and it would be accepted. That's what you're attempting to state.
No, that's only half true. Anyone can say anything, and it should be worthy of being discussed respectfully. Having a discussion about a topic isn't the same thing as accepting the ideas. Giving the ideas a chance doesn't imply accepting them either. Here we go with the black/reject and white/accept again. There are shades of gray in just giving the ideas a chance. I wasn't thinking of you when I made the black-and-white accusation, but I guess it does apply.
The first part is partly true: I don't like people using the word "stupid". It pushes people's emotional buttons and prevents them from being as logical as they can potentially be. I want people to think to the best of their ability and use of that word prevents that. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can point out flaws in an idea without pushing people's emotional buttons, then you would have my respect. As it is, the "Emperor's New Clothes" play is a cheap trick and works against the goal of education.
Fffff... this is "cater to the needs of idiots".
No, it's merely the most efficient way to serve my goal, which is to get people to think more and reach their maximum intellectual and creative potential. The intention is not for the purpose of anybody else's needs: this behavior is about my wants. If the environment nurtures people to be as smart as they can be, it's likely to make my life better too.
If people cannot handle being called stupid, they won't survive.
The problem is that people
do survive being called stupid, but it warps them. They survive, but the resulting world becomes a sad, miserable place to live.
Hell your brilliant ideas will be called stupid in work environments.
I'm successful enough that I have the luxury of refusing jobs in which I would have to work with children. Adults don't call each other stupid, and I have a particularly charmed work life with wonderful coworkers. Ideas are discussed only upon their technical merits. I have not heard any of my coworkers use the word "stupid" at all since James was laid off three years ago, partly for creating a hostile work environment. We definitely still have plenty of disagreements, and some ideas turn out to be better than others, but we consider all contributions and debate them respectfully. I've never been called stupid at work, and I've been working since I was 14.
This is what everyone said "waaaah I can't handle people being negative". Too bad, grow a damned backbone.
Is there any point to being negative? And, if you're directing the comment at me, yes, I grew a backbone. I'm now doing my best to stand up for the people being bullied. I'm standing up to reduce hostility in the environment by explaining why people shouldn't be so hostile.
In this thread, there have already been many reasons for ignoring people other than being unable to defend an idea. You haven't addressed or acknowledged any of them.
No, I have. Because it's all encompassing. I even said what I think is the only legitimate reason for ignoring someone.
You might've said what you think the only legitimate reason for ignoring someone is, but people have refuted your point after that. That point has been addressed. People click ignore to run away from bullies, not to run away from the truth.
You are far more likely to get it if you refrain from abusing people. If you abuse people, this works against getting the logic as to why. Calling people stupid is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you honestly don't want people to be logical, don't do something to reduce the probability of them being logical.
HA... like others have said, grow a backbone. If you cannot support an idea merely because someone put it down, you won't survive.
This isn't about me. You ignored the point that I'm trying to make: You claim you want people to be logical, but you do things to make them less so. So, logically, calling people stupid is more important to you than getting other people to be more logical.
It's not logical to act like an idiot and not support your idea because someone put it down. Welcome to real life.
I agree with that. However, it is also real life that most people are less logical if you put them down, and you know this. If you don't want people to be idiots, why are you doing things to make them that way? You still haven't addressed the question of why, if you truly want people to be smarter, don't you help them do so, especially when doing something as simplistic as avoiding certain meaningless words would go a long way towards helping?
I don't give a crap, personally, if you're wordy.
However, other people do.
With you, the issue is you miss HUGE POINTS. You seem to ignore logic and assume that things will work.
No, I don't assume things will work. I construct a web of logic explaining why they work. What you're using is not logic.
You want me to refer to your little race one? Tell me something. How will you force a racist person, to breed with someone who is of a different race?
Interbreeding doesn't require force at all. Furthermore, not that much of the population has to mingle in order to break down the races. I'm just saying that the breakdown of the races will happen due to ease of global communication and travel. Nobody has to make it happen. Evolution already applies a very subtle subconscious preference for genetic diversity over genetic inbreeding. I already said this. People will mingle by choice. This "idea" is not a plan of action, and nobody has to believe me. It's just a glimpse of the future. The days of race and racism are numbered.
Here's another idea to accompany your mixed-race one as well. If everyone was dead... there would be no racism.
I agree with that.
Because I would ignore the huge logical gap of "how we reach this point".
Sun going supernova would do it quite nicely. There is no logical gap here. No effort or plan of action required. It's just a glimpse of the future.
This is what makes the idea incredibly stupid.
Would it help if you just called it a glimpse of the future rather than an "idea"? I'm not proposing anything be done. I just want people to do the thought exercise, see the future free of racism, and be more open to accepting that future. I think it helps make the future come sooner.
Want to go on the basis of communism. This is the same line of logic you are pursuing. An idea that works, if amazing steps and bounds of impossibility can be done to reach the end goal.
"Communism" is another ambiguous word. I don't know which aspects of communism are included in your use of the term.
After that end-goal, an assumption that EVERYONE will follow the base principle must them also be made so that the idea will work.
Not everybody has to interbreed in order to destroy the racial coherence enough to get rid of racism.
That is how logic works, and you are ignoring it.
Now you're just doing what you thought it was I was doing. You seem to have used a very poorly explained analogy to communism in order to make a point about race or something. You did not provide me much of a basis of what you mean by communism to start addressing whatever your point was.
You never addressed ANY of my points on this in those threads
I pre-addressed them, or I addressed them when responding to other people.
I line item'd almost every single point you made stating how it cannot work
I was trying to avoid line-iteming because ewu said not to. Lose-lose situation again. I believe I have reached the point of it being logically impossible to please anybody.
You just automatically assume that if people don't agree with your idea then, they aren't reading what you say?
No, I assume that, if I've already pre-addressed their points, then they aren't reading or aren't understanding what I tried to say.
So let's say, you are explaining your idea perfectly.
That is impossible. There is just no humanly possible way to explain ideas perfectly. I have to strike a balance between time pressures and the readers' tolerance. I just explain the best I can in the circumstances I have. I know I can never explain any idea well enough, much less "perfectly".
That doesn't mean your idea has huge logic gaps within them.
Any attempt to explain any idea on anybody's part will always have huge gaps. Language is very limited, and thoughts are just fundamentally too vast and complex to fit. This is another reason why it's bad to leap to the conclusion that ideas are "stupid" too quickly. Nobody can conceivably crowd any full-fledged fully supported thought into the tolerance of another person's attention span, although it's possible to come close if people have dealt with each other a lot and have developed enough of a shared vocabulary and background.
Why are you assuming that because I said that, none of what I said applies?
I didn't. I wouldn't have taken the time to address all those previous points if I assumed that none of it applies.
It's neither and both. Seeing shades of gray means not jumping to opposite ends. It's accepting that neither end is fully correct and that what is "right" and "logical" varies depending on the exact circumstances.
I don't jump to opposite ends.
You seem to believe that things are right or they're wrong (or "stupid" in your words). "Right" and "wrong"/"stupid" are opposite ends. Insisting that things that aren't "right" must be "stupid"
is jumping to opposite ends. When I say "shades of gray", I'm referring to the concept that things are neither right nor wrong.
I don't disagree with an idea just because of what the idea is, but rather what it involves. You don't get this point...
I get that you like supported ideas. I'm supporting my ideas, but you don't give any indication of trying to understand them. If you disagree, then that's fine, and it's your right. But, you're not even close enough to addressing the points that I see it as disagreement. We have fundamentally different base universes and vocabularies. A lot of what you say simply doesn't make any sense to me in the context I thought I provided. And often, you're not even close enough to addressing what I think I've said that I even know how to respond.
There's the possibility that you merely don't have the background or the base value to see the logic.
Or maybe I do, and know more about it than you do?
If that is the case, then why can't you explain it in a way that I understand that you get it? I'm very wordy, so I give you lots of ammo. If you know more about it, it should be easy for you to rephrase what you know in terms of the vocabulary I'm using. I'm not even using offensive vocabulary. I don't explain things in terms of your vocabulary because I generally prefer to not use inherently abusive terms.
intelligence very seldomly threatens people
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA Oh man... you have no social understandings if you state this. The entire idea of picking and bullying nerds is because they are threatened by intelligence.
OK, you're using a different variety of "threatened", but I can see your point. However, as you said, the typical reaction when being threatened by a nerd is to pick on them, bully them, and beat them up, not to run away from them. People tend to run away when being threatened by bullies. They tend to not run away when threatened by intelligence. My overall point still stands: the ignore button is to run away from abuse, not intelligence. (By the way, while I
see the point, I disagree that the jocks even capable of sufficiently recognizing the nerds' intelligence enough to be threatened by it. The jocks just see the nerds as weird and different, and that's why they pick on nerds. People get picked on just because they're different and not fitting in. Bullies don't have to recognize the victims as intelligent to pick on them.)
*sigh* I apologize for the length of this, but I think it was necessary. Long, point-by-point responses for PyronIkari. Short, whole-concept responses for ewu. Try to keep length down in general for everybody else. Trying... Not at all easy.
