At the risk of sounding disrespectful, rahvin, that's bull.
It's a debate forum. You're welcome to disagree with me as much as you like. Without disagreement, after all, there couldn't be debate.
People here like to dish it out, but they can't seem to read something for its content rather that nitpicking it for "scientific correctness" at every turn, even though the poster has made efforts to qualify his statements.
The correct usage of terms is necessary in communicating content. I'll admit that we may be sensitive when it comes to certain words (theory, empirical, evidence, fact, etc), but this is because the opposing side of the debate uses them so dishonestly as in the case I mentioned earlier ("Evolution is only a theory!"). We are in the habit of correcting the usage of these terms out of necessity, becasue inaccurate definitions lead to incorrect conclusions.
Why should anyone spend their time trying to communicate with you if you're going to confront them with this scientific correctness "gotcha" factor?
You aren't required to communicate with anyone. But if I misuse an important word on a debate forum, I expect to be corrected.
The one exception to this was iceage, who seemed genuinely interested in the content of my posting. He was thoughtful enough to get beyond the issue of "scientific correctness"--at least long enough to hear me out, then he was considerate in his reply. Iceage has proven my point--dialogue can happen without freaking over the terminology all the time. The rest of you just kept "snapping and snarling and hurling insults" in the demand for "scientific correctness" at the expense of any conversation. This IS the coffee house, afterall. What a misnomer that is!
That's nice. But the coffee house is simply a place with less strict moderation - that doesn't mean the debaters are any more lenient.
This was my second thread, and I suppose it will be my last.
Shame to lose a poster so quickly, but as the saying goes, "if you can't take the heat..."
I didn't even intend to participate in the "Just a question..." debate in the first place...I had only asked a simple, albeit "scientifically incorrect" question of jar, and offered what I thought was a respectful explanation as to why I was asking--then all hell broke loose at the coffee bar.
We corrected your use of a word. You continued to respond, though you are under no obligation to do so. The "exit" you sought in previous posts is simply not hitting that "reply" button.
But that doesn't matter, I'm just "whining" and "sneering down from my cross" at trhis point.
Not my words. I simply think you're stubborn and wrong.
Well, okay, and you seem to have a persecution complex. But you're hardly alone there.
Now noseyned has stepped in it too with a warning for me to stop being disrespectful and wasting his precious little bits. He says I need to reread the rules. Do the rules themselves protect "scientific correctness" on this forum?
In certain parts of the board, yes. The coffee house has less moderation, so you weren't suspended for refusing to meet accurate definitions after being corrected. That's a possibility in the science section, but not here. Doesn't mean the debaters themselves wont insist on accuracy, though. It also has allowed us all to go far afield of any topic without repercussions.
If so, then YOU are the ones "doomed to stagnation", I'm afraid. If not, then why can't people be more respectful of a post they don't understand.
"Respect" does not mean "you have to agree with me." Neither does it mean "you should at least meet me partway." It also doesn't mean we won't call you on inaccuracies, or give you leeway on something we disagree with.
You yourself are accusing me of "lying" when I had in good faith insisted that putting quotation marks around a word DOES change the word by signalling to a reader your intention of employing the word in an altered sense of it, or in some other way perhaps.
If I say "cat," can I mean "dog?" If I say "theory," or theory, is the word somehow different? Quotation marks do not denote a new definition of a word. If they do, then definitions are useless in the first place, and reasoned discourse is impossible. This is why maintaining some standards in the usage of terms is necessary - otherwise, we may as well be speaking different languages.
But of course I am NOT wrong about this, only frustrated that others apparently would rather fight ad nauseum about it than accept a difference of opinion and move on for discussion purposes.
Well, we
do like to argue. It's kind of why were here. Posting on a
debate forum.
Oh, but I'm whining again, aren't I?
Well, yes, I guess I am. But then again, so are you all, too, if you care to admit it.
Tu quoque fallacy. Yes, we're both arguing off topic. Doesn't change the fact that we are right, and you are wrong.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
™ Version 4.2