Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 10:38 PM
27 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, PsychMJC, ringo, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,104 Year: 9,140/19,786 Month: 1,562/2,119 Week: 322/576 Day: 125/98 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   Anyone else notice this pattern?
nator
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 121 of 318 (450366)
01-21-2008 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by pelican
01-21-2008 5:13 PM


Re: full of it
quote:
I don't care either, I don't have much to do with those of your superior attitude when you don't understand a goddamn thing about the effect you have on others. It's called EMPATHY. Did you study that in your fine education?

I have plenty of empathy.

What does that have to do with this thread, and the fact that it appears, as it does, on a science-based debate board?

quote:
What are you people trying to prove?

Please read the OP.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by pelican, posted 01-21-2008 5:13 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by pelican, posted 01-21-2008 7:43 PM nator has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1622 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 122 of 318 (450380)
01-21-2008 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by ringo
01-21-2008 3:10 PM


Mulligan
quote:
Maybe they're just doing what PD suggested, not carrying baggage from on thread to another - only they're extending it to individual posts. Every post is a clean slate.
I like that. Continuous do overs. :)

I think it's rare for either side to admit error/mistake to the opposition.

Never give up, never surrender!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by ringo, posted 01-21-2008 3:10 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by nator, posted 01-21-2008 9:46 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3150 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 123 of 318 (450381)
01-21-2008 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Granny Magda
01-21-2008 4:48 PM


Re: ????????????????????????????????????
I normally don't correct people on such matters, where it is not important for the discussion. However, if you are going to complain about implied accusations of ignorance on your part, it is probably best if you don't include stupid mistakes in your complaint. It undermines your argument somewhat.
If you doubt that my correction is itself correct, go and look up infer and imply in a dictionary.

You didn't answer my question. You obviously did not appreciate me inferring you might be wrong hey? This is exactly how others feel with this condescending superior attitude. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, people have feelings to be taken into account.

I'm sorry I pushed your button. It was not my intention as I believe there isn't that much difference between imply and infer. I did look them both up and my meaning was perfectly clear. There was no need whatsoever for you to show your superiority, even if you were right. There is no need to call my alledged mistake 'STUPID' either.

Your reason, I believe, was that you corrected me to stop me looking foolish as I am arguing against ignorance? I am, YOURS and the rest who have no idea how their judgmental attitude hurts, belittles, angers and much more. I am suggesting that this attitude, though innocent, has an effect on others that you may not be aware of.

Example: None of you responded to Heinriks' post of one sentence with every word spelled wrong and void of punctuation. He made a very valid point and no-one picked it up. Why was that?

There is no action without a reaction. I was innocently doing to you what you innocently do to others. I see my behaviour at antagonizing others and it was truly unintentional.

This is how I truly feel. I love your minds. I love the english language. I love communication with others. I love this thread.

The only beef I have is the dissconnection the attitude creates between human beings purely because we are different. Not inferior or superior. Just different. We need to embrace this difference and see that we all have something to offer.

Those of you very bright people should be leading the way and using your gifts to help others, not hurt them and dismiss them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Granny Magda, posted 01-21-2008 4:48 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by purpledawn, posted 01-21-2008 6:46 PM pelican has responded
 Message 134 by Granny Magda, posted 01-21-2008 7:34 PM pelican has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 124 of 318 (450382)
01-21-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by molbiogirl
01-21-2008 2:48 PM


Re: shoe on the other foot
Juggs is infamous for just that. As are a bunch of other creos. Actually, now that I think about it, it's the rare creo who acknowledges his error!

And the rarest in my experience is actually changing to the correct usage of terminology and concepts.

It's more often that cognitive dissonance prevents corrections, and thus they just don't see it as the issue - they are right and you are wrong, not matter if you were the scientist who defined the term in the first place ... :D

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by molbiogirl, posted 01-21-2008 2:48 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 125 of 318 (450389)
01-21-2008 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by molbiogirl
01-21-2008 2:48 PM


Re: shoe on the other foot
now that I think about it, it's the rare creo who acknowledges his error!

I have yet to see people who are not "creo's" acknowledge their errors.
They will usually change subject first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by molbiogirl, posted 01-21-2008 2:48 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Quetzal, posted 01-21-2008 7:06 PM riVeRraT has responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3150 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 126 of 318 (450391)
01-21-2008 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Rahvin
01-21-2008 9:46 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
rahvin writes:

When speaking from a position of superior knowledge of science to one whose proficiency in that arena is less than that of a teenage child and who yet purports to be able to refute virtually the entire body of scientific theory, condescension is inevitable.

You are confusing lack of education with someone who is as pig-headed as yourself, no offense intended, but I can't think of a better word. My apologies for not being as articulate as you.

rahvin, we can only know what we know. If I knew exactly what you knew there would be no need of you and we would have to fight. I am trying to bring to your awareness something that the intelligent mindset cannot comprehend. The mindset blocks certain information that does not fit the criteria.

Now we are in the same position as you describe above except, I know something you do not and you are becoming annoyed with me because I disagree with you. You are disagreeing with me too but you won't see the connection because you are right on both counts, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Rahvin, posted 01-21-2008 9:46 AM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Rahvin, posted 01-21-2008 6:59 PM pelican has not yet responded
 Message 142 by nator, posted 01-21-2008 9:50 PM pelican has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1622 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 127 of 318 (450394)
01-21-2008 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by pelican
01-21-2008 6:09 PM


Don't Consent
quote:
This is exactly how others feel with this condescending superior attitude. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, people have feelings to be taken into account.

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

This is the wrong place to look for sympathy, empathy, or understanding. It is a debate board. It's all about the battle.

So it is best to keep your Achilles heel guarded and find your opponent's instead.

That's why it is wise to keep the encyclopedia idea of debate in mind and keep emotions out of it. That why we are to argue the position and not the person.

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either
emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to
maintain a coolly academic approach.

-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

As Zawi pointed out in Message 3: Someone who is wrong about an issue can increase their persuasiveness if their writing skills are superior to that of their opponent's, giving them an unfair advantage in debate,...

So if one is up against a good writer, they need to respond accordingly and not stoop to the personal.

If one is up against someone who stoops to the personal, one needs to maintain their distance.

quote:
Those of you very bright people should be leading the way and using your gifts to help others, not hurt them and dismiss them.
Unfortunately, since this is a debate board and opposition is the name of the game, it is difficult to just be inquisitive without being pummeled. Sad but true.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by pelican, posted 01-21-2008 6:09 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2008 7:15 PM purpledawn has responded
 Message 132 by jar, posted 01-21-2008 7:26 PM purpledawn has not yet responded
 Message 143 by nator, posted 01-21-2008 10:06 PM purpledawn has not yet responded
 Message 148 by pelican, posted 01-22-2008 4:33 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3150 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 128 of 318 (450396)
01-21-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by faust
01-21-2008 5:30 PM


Re: full of it
Sympathy would probably be more accurate.

Are you suggesting 'sympathy' instaed of 'empathy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by faust, posted 01-21-2008 5:30 PM faust has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1352 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 129 of 318 (450397)
01-21-2008 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by pelican
01-21-2008 6:38 PM


Re: shoe on the other foot
You are confusing lack of education with someone who is as pig-headed as yourself, no offense intended, but I can't think of a better word. My apologies for not being as articulate as you.

Yawn.

Rahvin, we can only know what we know. If I knew exactly what you knew there would be no need of you and we would have to fight.

I assume there was supposed to be a "not" in there, right?

I am trying to bring to your awareness something that the intelligent mindset cannot comprehend. The mindset blocks certain information that does not fit the criteria.

So it is your position that ignorance is, in some cases, a good thing. I strongly disagree.

The mindset blocks certain information that does not fit the criteria.

You assume that education and intellect require a closed mind - this is far from the case. Honest, rational people of any level of education will accept the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no claim is to be trusted unless it can be backed up with evidence.

If a Creationist were to, for example, provide me with incontrovertible evidence that refutes a position I believe to be true, I will accept the position that has the best evidence and makes the most accurate predictions about the natural world.

My beliefs are tentative, and rely on evidence. The beliefs of a Creationist were written a few thousand years ago, and tend not to change a whole lot.

Now we are in the same position as you describe above except, I know something you do not and you are becoming annoyed with me because I disagree with you.

What, exactly, do you know that I do not? I'm certainly not omniscient, but I'd like to know what you're referring to.

And annoyed? Not really. I just don't care if someone is offended over the course of a debate, so long as the offense is not related to bigotry.

You are disagreeing with me too but you won't see the connection because you are right on both counts, right?

I'm not sure what you're saying. Please elaborate.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by pelican, posted 01-21-2008 6:38 PM pelican has not yet responded

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4037 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 130 of 318 (450401)
01-21-2008 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by riVeRraT
01-21-2008 6:36 PM


Re: shoe on the other foot
I have yet to see people who are not "creo's" acknowledge their errors.

Heh. You obviously missed the thread on symbiosis where - after 6 or 8 pages - WK forced me to eat major crow and completely re-evaluate a cherished idea that I had held for over ten years. Now THAT was a classic. And I STILL hate him for it :D .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by riVeRraT, posted 01-21-2008 6:36 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2008 7:57 PM Quetzal has not yet responded
 Message 157 by riVeRraT, posted 01-22-2008 1:25 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 131 of 318 (450405)
01-21-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by purpledawn
01-21-2008 6:46 PM


Being Pummeled
it is difficult to just be inquisitive without being pummeled.

I disagree strongly.

Those who come in honestly asking questions are always(almost) treated gently even when they are waaaay wrong and lacking in basic knowledge. However, this is rare in the creo community who come in arrogantly acting like they have both encyclopedic knowledge and unrivaled reasoning skills. They are not inquisitive. They know little and intend to keep it that way. Those folks are pummeled.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by purpledawn, posted 01-21-2008 6:46 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by purpledawn, posted 01-21-2008 7:45 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30984
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 132 of 318 (450408)
01-21-2008 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by purpledawn
01-21-2008 6:46 PM


On questions
Unfortunately, since this is a debate board and opposition is the name of the game, it is difficult to just be inquisitive without being pummeled.

I really think that is wrong. If someone is inquisitive, that is they actually ask questions, I think they usually find many folk here more than willing to try to provide an answer.

Where the pummeling usually seems to happen is when folk come here thinking they actually have the answers already.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by purpledawn, posted 01-21-2008 6:46 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3150 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 133 of 318 (450409)
01-21-2008 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Rahvin
01-21-2008 5:32 PM


Re: full of it
rahvin writes:

It's not our fault if you feel inferior when being told you're wrong. When someone says the Earth is 6000 years old and backs it up by saying radiometric dating is wrong without any evidence for that, or uses the word "theory" incorrectly for the fiftieth time in two pages, or otherwise demonstrates that they don;t even have the barest comprehension of the subject matter they are arguing against, the rest of us will correct them.

If we sound condescending in doing so, well...this is a debate forum. If being on the losing end of a debate hurts your widdle feelings, feel free to not participate.

There is a difference between avoiding attacking an individual and making a person "feel bad." Telling people the Bible is full of inaccuracies and outright mythology offends quite a few people here, and misuse of scientific terms offends others. Whether one party feels bad after the argument is concluded is irrelevant to whether one side is correct or not.

Offense is irrelevant. Empathy is irrelevant. Your anger is irrelevant. All that matters is the argument. The best way to combat someone you feel is being condescending or offensive is to prove them wrong.

Well seeing as it's all irrelevant to you, it won't matter if I respond in a sarcastic manner. Your judgment (which doesn't matter because you are right) of me feeling inferior is BULLSHIT! You could not be more mistaken. You won't even be able to admit you are wrong if you get caught with your hand in the till.

Don't even go there trying to patronise me with 'widdle' feelings. Who the hell do you think you are? If that isn't the epitome of condescending behaviour I don't know what is.

If I wasn't here you would be still debating how clever you are and how inferior others are compared to you without opposition. You all jsu nod and agree with each other. That's not a debate. That mass mentality.

The person who doesn't understand the meaning of theory may need to be taught differently. This person is clearly having something rammed down their throat that they cannot comprehend and it is judged harshly. Why keep using the same method for everyone when we are all different? If we all had the same academic intelligence, who would want to do the menial work? None of this occurs to your closed mind.

I am not speaking om my own behalf. I don't need your opinion to identify myself. But others do. Others rely on you to understnd them and they trust you because you are educated. Most of these posts don't give a shit about others and prefer to be amongst their own kind. You don't know what you are missing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Rahvin, posted 01-21-2008 5:32 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by nator, posted 01-21-2008 10:17 PM pelican has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 56 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 134 of 318 (450412)
01-21-2008 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by pelican
01-21-2008 6:09 PM


Re: ????????????????????????????????????
quote:
You didn't answer my question.

Do you mean this question?

quote:
Haven't you something to say about the condescending attitude and the inferrence of inferiority?

You are more than welcome to infer whatever you like. Your inference might even be correct. That is up to you. I cannot control what you might infer from my posts. Your inferences are not my responsibility.
As for the implication of inferiority, I agree with you that an inferior command of English does not imply a that a person is inferior overall. It does imply that they might not be the sharpest tool in the box, but that's not the same thing. Poor English does not necessarily reflect a lack of intellect, or that an given argument is wrong, but it doesn't look good. As a general rule of thumb, it seems that most of the posts on this board which are expressed in semi-literate gibberish are also wrong in their content.
If you want to avoid condescension, it behooves you to avoid making stupid mistakes. The widespread misuse of imply and infer is just a mistake that happens to irritate me. Don't take it personally, but equally, don't continue to make the same mistake, after it has been pointed out to you. That does look bad.
Infer and imply have related, but distinct meanings. Getting them wrong looks bad and just makes your posts that little bit harder to grasp. I responded to you in order to correct your mistake, but also to imply that your complaint about condescension over linguistic errors sounds ironic whilst you continue to make linguistic errors.

quote:
Example: None of you responded to Heinriks' post of one sentence with every word spelled wrong and void of punctuation. He made a very valid point and no-one picked it up. Why was that?

Now you are implying that no-one has responded to Heinrik's garbled sentence because we are unable to understand it. An alternative inference, based on the lack of responses, might be that it was understood, but no-one cared to reply.

quote:
I love the english language.

Then why don't you capitalise it correctly?
I admit that I'm teasing you a little, but you leave yourself wide open to it. Grow a thicker skin.

Edited by Granny Magda, : html fixed


Mutate and Survive
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by pelican, posted 01-21-2008 6:09 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by pelican, posted 01-21-2008 7:47 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3150 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 135 of 318 (450416)
01-21-2008 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by nator
01-21-2008 5:35 PM


Re: full of it
nator writes:

What does that have to do with this thread, and the fact that it appears, as it does, on a science-based debate board?

Jesus, I'm wrong again, I thought it was the 'coffee house.'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 01-21-2008 5:35 PM nator has not yet responded

Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019