Know-Nothing-Know-It-Alls

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh, I didn't mean always. I just meant ...

You might be best served by simply retiring this thread ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How about:

..., there is value in providing any argument, even if that value is based on showing why that argument is flawed.

There is also value in learning that your comments here are not valid evidence of your views.

 

[paarsurrey]

To expand a bit, I think that personal insults or general insults of say "all Muslims" or "all Atheists" are disgusting. An easy way to avoid this urge is to realize that, although members might express views that you find unethical or wrong, they might just be exploring the issue rather than expressing their own firm stance. Thus, personal insults would be unwarranted.

I quite agree with you.

I make no personal comments on others. I express only my own views on other's comments or on the topic without the intention of necessarily convincing others.
Even if somebody makes personal comments against me or insults me I don't respond in the same coin as that diverts one' attention from the issue being discussed which is my primary interest.

Just my thoughts

Regards

 

[Desert Snake]

You are changing your question. You merely said that the claim "all Muslims are terrorists" was made. If there was evidence provided to support this argument, that would be a different story. It all depends on the argument made. But, outlandish claims like this one, without any supporting evidence, are not what I am talking about. I am talking about taking stances that you might not necessarily hold in order to flesh out your opponents reasoning.

There are some problems with taking stances that one does not hold, for the sake of argument.
-You might think you know the stance/position. when we are dealing with matters such as religious belief, no matter how much we 'read', or talk to other people, we may not really understand another position; not to the point of making it an affectation. There are many, times, where, on the forums, someone has taken a stance that is not theirs, or they don't fully understand, in a debate with me, and most of the time, first off, it's pretty obvious. Secondly, their argumets tend to be ''off'', as in, they are arguing from a position of teaching that ''isn't reality'', so the logic is usually a bit goofy. Then, there are the strawman arguments. These occur, because often, the person affecting a stance, thinks that the bad assumptions made by the person whose belief they are assuming, for the sake of argument, are accurate, ie, they make the logical to them, but not actually logical, assumption, that the belief they don't hold is somehow 'involved' in a character or belief determination of someone else.

It's just not not a good idea, imo. too easy to goof.

 

[leibowde84]

How about:

There is also value in learning that your comments here are not valid evidence of your views.

That's my whole point.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's my whole point.

So you say ...

 

[Desert Snake]

I've had an ongoing battle with another member of RF that claims to know more about my beliefs than I do merely from my comments on a single religious debate forum. To me, this is the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. I pride myself on being able to look at things from different points of view, and often I am educated on this site by other members who enlighten me to various assumptions I might overlook. Often, I enjoy playing the "Devil's Advocate", simply because it forces me to look at things from different angles. Imho, avoiding this is detrimental to one's own intellectual development. Because of this, it seems ridiculous to even consider the possibility that you could know my personal beliefs merely from the comments I've made on this site.

What are your thoughts?

Devils advocate doesn't work. You don't know the positions well enough, IN REALITY, to be affectating them in debate.


Like, 'average xianity'. I have no idea, really, in reality, what this is. No matter what my beliefs are, this is not a part of my knowledge. No amount of discussion on RF is going to change this. So I don't affect the position; simple.

 

[Thief]

I've had an ongoing battle with another member of RF that claims to know more about my beliefs than I do merely from my comments on a single religious debate forum. To me, this is the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. I pride myself on being able to look at things from different points of view, and often I am educated on this site by other members who enlighten me to various assumptions I might overlook. Often, I enjoy playing the "Devil's Advocate", simply because it forces me to look at things from different angles. Imho, avoiding this is detrimental to one's own intellectual development. Because of this, it seems ridiculous to even consider the possibility that you could know my personal beliefs merely from the comments I've made on this site.

What are your thoughts?

If it is not possible to know what you believe.....by what you post.....
and you then claim your postwork as a play of devil's advocate....

Then I must assume you have never posted what you believe in.
and I don't know you.

hmmmmm.....my last few words seem like an echo.....

 

[leibowde84]

You might be best served by simply retiring this thread ...

Or, then again, maybe you should just move on if you aren't interested in it, as there is no requirement for your input. Why are your comments so condescending? Wouldn't your time be better spent on a thread that you were actually interested in?

 

[leibowde84]

If it is not possible to know what you believe.....by what you post.....
and you then claim your postwork as a play of devil's advocate....

Then I must assume you have never posted what you believe in.
and I don't know you.

hmmmmm.....my last few words seem like an echo.....

I don't think my actual personal beliefs are relevant. Only the arguments themselves are, whether they are actually believed or not.

 

[Desert Snake]

The poll doesn't have the option, of 'people take up other positions for debate, but this makes their arguments, strawmen, goofy, incorrect, and confusing'.

 

[Thief]

I don't think my actual personal beliefs are relevant. Only the arguments themselves are, whether they are actually believed or not.

I believe your word is important.
What you profess to be true.....a weigh scale.

I suspect heaven does perform judgment.

Shall you stand by your own word?.....or are you seeking something better?

 

[leibowde84]

The poll doesn't have the option, of 'people take up other positions for debate, but this makes their arguments, strawmen, goofy, incorrect, and confusing'.

This is a ridiculous option, as taking up other positions does not create "strawmen arguments" (you might want to look up that term, as you are clearly confused on its meaning), make arguments any more or less "goofy" (vague), cause arguments to be "incorrect" (as the speaker's personal beliefs do not have an effect on the "correctness" of a position, nor do they make them any more or less "confusing" (not sure why they would).

Can you provide some specific examples that support this claim?

 

[Iti oj]

I believe your word is important.
What you profess to be true.....a weigh scale.

I suspect heaven does perform judgment.

Shall you stand by your own word?.....or are you seeking something better?

Words.are empty. If heaven.judges my words then heaven is shallow.

 

[leibowde84]

I believe your word is important.
What you profess to be true.....a weigh scale.

I suspect heaven does perform judgment.

Shall you stand by your own word?.....or are you seeking something better?

An argument is not a profession of faith or beliefs, and should not necessarily be treated as such. That is, unless a person explicitly states that it should. Argumentation is a tool used to discover truth.

 

[Willamena]

What are your thoughts?

Don't take ad hominem too seriously.

The phrase, "It's not always about you," can have an amusing entendre in this case.

 

[Thief]

Words.are empty. If heaven.judges my words then heaven is shallow.

no....more like peaceful....

 

[leibowde84]

Don't take ad hominem too seriously.

The phrase, "It's not always about you," can have an amusing entendre in this case.

What do you mean by this? It's not always about you?

 

[Desert Snake]

This is a ridiculous option, as taking up other positions does not create "strawmen arguments" (you might want to look up that term, as you are clearly confused on its meaning), make arguments any more or less "goofy" (vague), cause arguments to be "incorrect" (as the speaker's personal beliefs do not have an effect on the "correctness" of a position, nor do they make them any more or less "confusing" (not sure why they would).

Can you provide some specific examples that support this claim?

I'm not going to spend any more energy or time on this. It's not that important. adios.

 

[Thief]

An argument is not a profession of faith or beliefs, and should not necessarily be treated as such. That is, unless a person explicitly states that it should. Argumentation is a tool used to discover truth.

and we use a convention here.....state your belief as belief.

by argument....you ARE seeking something better.