• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Truth is dead: Long live RF!

What does 2+2 equal?

  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3.5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3.99

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • 4.315671

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • 6915425168.000003

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • A Pink Elephant in a tutu

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • 2 doesn't exist. It's a Social Construct developed by the CIA

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • When two "2s" love each other very much they have sex and give birth to a "4"

    Votes: 8 44.4%
  • I don't know. Sunstone hasn't told me yet. Sunstone is always right.

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Total voters
    18

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Notice the decimal point. That happens because of round-off error. Besides, why do you assume the large values of 2 are the same?

Spotted the point
Both are 2, I assume 2 is equal to 2 no matter how large the value of 2. Could be wrong thought
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
I went with the only logical answer:

When two "2s" love each other very much they have sex and give birth to a "4"

How is this logical?

2s are delusion disguising reality.

Also, buying into 4s leaves one intellectually broke.
 

Mister Silver

Faith's Nightmare
How is this logical?

2s are delusion disguising reality.

Also, buying into 4s leaves one intellectually broke.

Because it is a universally recognized truth is that two plus two equals four. Dismissing the wit of the two's making love but still arriving at the rational sum of four makes it the only logical answer.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Because it is a universally recognized truth is that two plus two equals four. Dismissing the wit of the two's making love but still arriving at the rational sum of four makes it the only logical answer.

You're making a "no true scotsman" fallacy. We are discussing 2s and 4s here. Not twos and fours.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Last I checked, I had no Scottish in my ancestry.
2s are twos and 4s are fours.

They're entirely different. Saying 2s are twos is like saying humans are gods. That would mean a human and a god could breed and make a divine child. That's just... ...oh... ...wait.

Never mind.
 

Mister Silver

Faith's Nightmare
They're entirely different. Saying 2s are twos is like saying humans are gods. That would mean a human and a god could breed and make a divine child. That's just... ...oh... ...wait.

Never mind.

That is in no way a logical comparison. Try again.
Give up?
Saying 2s are twos is like saying humans are Homo sapiens.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Probably. Give us your example of this experience.

I'd rather not. I don't think it would help and I don't really want to blame people or start the same rows over again. I'm more interested to see if someone has found of way of dealing with it.

It would be easy to think "flat earthers" (or equivalent) are just lying, but when they are being sincere it knocks you off balance. Its something that's happened on RF a few times and the first instinct is to think it's malicious. Its much simpler and more reassuring to think your sense of reality is under attack. Then you get the really uncomfortable sense that people are sincere and trying to have a row with them is the wrong thing to do. Not sure where you go from there though. Knowing you Share the same reality with people without sharing the same sense of reality gets alarming.

Well, it's not about the person your talking to. Remember, there are lurkers all over the place. . . I read almost everything you post, even if I don't have time to comment or leave a "like." There are times I've wanted to respond, but interacting with the depth of your ideas is often beyond my abilities or time.

For me, RF is not an echo chamber or a brick wall. It's a place with a silent audience, and the purpose of rhetorical debate is not to sway your opponent. It is to sway the audience.

Thanks for everything you do, and the high effort and thought you put into your communication. You've really made me think.

I am happy you are here!

I'd give you a hug if I could. That means a lot. :)

I like getting likes as much as everyone does. But I don't tend to think about the audience that much because its easier to focus on the people you're talking to. you get a response from them and the best responses are often the ones that say more than the words on the page. you get an insight in to what people are thinking and why. wanting to get people to change their minds may be a ego, selfish or even a power thing but there is sense of achievement in thinking you worked really hard on something and then someone gives you the recognition of "you know, maybe you're right" or maybe something simpler like "I didn't know that, I might need to look that up" or whatever. Its totally selfish but its sort of hard wired for me. debates rarely end like that though and its often not a mutually beneficial exchange. its just a long war of attrition in which everyone wears each other down, falling into comfortable categories and fighting each other with familiar labels. It's not very rewarding. When you break through it and get a connection, it can be pretty magical though. you get to take to a person and not a label.

Emotionally this has got really difficult. The "truth" is something pretty sacred for me (as I guess it is for most people), so my first reaction is often to treat someone who goes against it as if it were "blasphemy" and get angry or be offended. That's probably more revealing than I'd like it to be. :D Maybe on some primitive level it just feels like being threatened somehow or I'm one of those people who thinks emotionally so its harder to adjust. Then, maybe half and hour or an hour later, after writing maybe three or four versions of a reply until I've got something that might get past RF rules and resisted the desire to smash furniture, I've stopped simmering and realised that's not the right reaction or will be really ineffective. Its disorientating and pretty exhausting. I'd like to think its ego but its not that simple to let go of. there is the problem of learning how to get give and take on both sides. I'd usually like to walk away thinking I agree with someone at some level as it feels like I've achieved something.

I have my issues with RF, but this is the one that really kills the joy of it for me. Its hard to play the game if you are doing it with people who don't share the same set of rules if you will. You don't know what you're aiming for and it takes the fun out of it. I laugh it off but its also a corrosive nihilism that can get me down and becomes difficult to ignore. I haven't found a decent way to deal with it. Talking about it and admitting it's a problem sounds like the best place to start. After all, this place is basically group therapy. :D
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'd rather not. I don't think it would help and I don't really want to blame people or start the same rows over again. I'm more interested to see if someone has found of way of dealing with it.
I say use the "doubters" or "disbelievers" as a foil. Use their claims to tighten and hone your own arguments and substantiate your claims as much as possible. Do it like courts construct their opinions: set out the petitioner's or respondent's arguments one-by-one, as honestly and with as much clarity as possible, and show why each one is wrong or right but irrelevant, etc.
 
Top