Why Do You Write Opposing Answers?

[Stevicus]

Do you get angry when someone criticises your ideas?
Do you assume bad intentions, like the interlocutor wanting to dominate or censor you?
Do you criticise others ideas? Why?

Why do you post ideas in a forum when you don't want them to be criticised?

When I post a hypothesis, I want it to be dissected and the errors pointed out so that I can learn from it and refine or discard the hypothesis. Using the golden rule, I assume others want the same. I'm just helping when I criticise.
Is that wrong?

Debate me.

I don't get angry at criticism, unless it's unconstructive, terse, or otherwise unhelpful or unexplanatory. At the very least, tell me why you disagree, as that's just common courtesy. If I get an answer akin to "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you," then I'm going to assume that they're being intentionally rude.

A lot of debates seem to be more over conflicting values and different philosophies, although for the most part, they get bogged down in minutia and obscurantism.

 

[MikeF]

Why do you post ideas in a forum when you don't want them to be criticised?

I think for some, they are looking for affirmation of their beliefs and a community that share their views. They don't want their ideas challenged because they work for them as they are. They just don't want to be alone in their views.

 

[Heyo]

I think for some, they are looking for affirmation of their beliefs and a community that share their views. They don't want their ideas challenged because they work for them as they are. They just don't want to be alone in their views.

That's what DIRs are for.

 

[Heyo]

But what if someone dissects your ideas, points out "errors" from their point of view -- but you don't see as errors? Are your own carefully considered thoughts not worthy of being defended, until such time as somebody gives you some real, supported reason to reconsider them?

That is, after all, what debate is all about.

Yes, it is. When someone points out an error I don't see, I have a) not understood the point of my interlocutor and need to ask questions or b) not made my idea clear enough so my interlocutor can't see how his critique isn't valid and I have to explain the idea better. (Or c) the interlocutor is a bad faith critic and I have to ignore her/him.)

 

[rational experiences]

When a human wrote first claiming I am right they never were.

So the theist caused a human to oppose them afterwards in word use.

A human argues against a human so it is not a debate we use words to say to first theist word user you were always wrong.

The human posing the theory already says they are correct....when theorising got us destroyed.

To discuss a human in theory to say you are wrong is not to interact with them at all in any word use rationally.

The diction of ary said science sophism was a cunning contrivance by word use as descriptive teaching purpose.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Do you get angry when someone criticises your ideas?
Do you assume bad intentions, like the interlocutor wanting to dominate or censor you?
Do you criticise others ideas? Why?

Why do you post ideas in a forum when you don't want them to be criticised?

When I post a hypothesis, I want it to be dissected and the errors pointed out so that I can learn from it and refine or discard the hypothesis. Using the golden rule, I assume others want the same. I'm just helping when I criticise.
Is that wrong?

Debate me.

I used to become frustrated and annoyed with people who made critique of my views and belief. Now i may get frustrated only a little bit, but manage to stay silent with a calm mind.

I still react to bashing of other peoples belief or religion. But i do not get angry

 

[Quagmire]

It's fun when you find a loose thread dangling from somebody's conceptual cardigan, and you pull it and pull it and pull it until all their left with is a pile of yarn on the floor . . .

And then you get to sit back and watch them trying to put it back on anyway.

 

[rational experiences]

The one earth God legal status versus practice science said man never knew and was just an egotist.

Law stone was created as a one of formed body. No argument.

One is God human legal argument. Law agreed world community implemented against humans who lie.

Science was that liar

There is no cosmic law first as one not existing one legally argued the correct God status.

Law for humans living on that stone planet.

Legal reasons involving God.

The other legal reason stone never owned waters form. Space had.

Water had no one status and it's title was holy.

Holy meant highest law not allowed to alter its state.

Water only considered as water by mass first as water is reviewed as mass first in any legal argument.

You cannot have a little bit of separated water no such status.

 

[RestlessSoul]

An observation;

Some of the misunderstandings I’ve witnessed or been party to on this forum are, I now believe, almost entirely cultural.

Regardless of specific beliefs, religion in America, it seems, is an entirely different social and cultural phenomenon than is the case either in Europe or as far as I understand, in most of Asia. This probably goes some way towards explaining the naked hostility some atheists display towards people of faith.

For the record, and again an observation not a judgement, the disagreements on this forum appear for the most part to be respectful and conducted in good faith, until an angry Atheist (sic) takes offence at some real or imagined slight.

 

[Viker]

I'm a life long contrarian. Sue me if you will.

 

[Viker]

New Do you get angry when someone criticises your ideas

I usually enjoy this. Sometimes.

 

[Viker]

Do you criticise others ideas? Why

Yes. Because they're probably not my ideas. I believe critical thinking is the most necessary facet of humanity.

 

[Estro Felino]

Do you get angry when someone criticises your ideas?
Do you assume bad intentions, like the interlocutor wanting to dominate or censor you?
Do you criticise others ideas? Why?

Why do you post ideas in a forum when you don't want them to be criticised?

When I post a hypothesis, I want it to be dissected and the errors pointed out so that I can learn from it and refine or discard the hypothesis. Using the golden rule, I assume others want the same. I'm just helping when I criticise.
Is that wrong?

Debate me.

Well...I love debate.
So I want people to criticize my beliefs or ideas.

 

[Viker]

Is that wrong

Define wrong. I'm serious. Then we can debate together.

 

[Heyo]

Define wrong. I'm serious. Then we can debate together.

"Wrong", in this case, is what is immoral or unethical. E.g. you could be of the opinion that the Golden Rule is a bad moral guide and you prefer the Platinum Rule.

 

[Augustus]

Do you criticise others ideas? Why?

I particularly like to criticise blatantly wrong ideas held by people who are over proud of their own "rational skeptic" credentials and watching the extent they will go to to preserve these obviously wrong beliefs (usually ob some aspect of the history of religion).

On issues they are emotionally attached to (yet are not very well informed about), fundies and "Rationalists" are the 2 groups least likely to be persuaded by scholarly evidence.

67118"]Do you get angry when someone criticises your ideas?[/QUOTE]

I like it, then I get to tell them that they are wrong

 

[Augustus]

"Wrong", in this case, is what is immoral or unethical. E.g. you could be of the opinion that the Golden Rule is a bad moral guide and you prefer the Platinum Rule.

Don't be stupid. The Sliver Rule is obviously the best

 

[Viker]

"Wrong", in this case, is what is immoral or unethical. E.g. you could be of the opinion that the Golden Rule is a bad moral guide and you prefer the Platinum Rule.

I really get the Golden Rule. Then it seems to be solipsistic. What if I were a masochist? How should I go about doing unto others?

Morality and ethics are things people can agree on ahead of time. They make sense. I'm not opposed. I'm just skeptical.

 

[Heyo]

I particularly like to criticise blatantly wrong ideas held by people who are over proud of their own "rational skeptic" credentials and watching the extent they will go to to preserve these obviously wrong beliefs (usually ob some aspect of the history of religion).

On issues they are emotionally attached to (yet are not very well informed about), fundies and "Rationalists" are the 2 groups least likely to be persuaded by scholarly evidence.

67118"]Do you get angry when someone criticises your ideas?

I like it, then I get to tell them that they are wrong [/QUOTE]
I've noticed and appreciate your interest in and knowledge of history. I can match your knowledge only in a small time frame and area but we may come to debates when that small field is topic. Also my knowledge is more based on archaeology than history. You don't happen to belong to the old school of historians who look down on the "diggers"?

 

[ChristineM]

Do you get angry when someone criticises your ideas?
Do you assume bad intentions, like the interlocutor wanting to dominate or censor you?
Do you criticise others ideas? Why?

Why do you post ideas in a forum when you don't want them to be criticised?

When I post a hypothesis, I want it to be dissected and the errors pointed out so that I can learn from it and refine or discard the hypothesis. Using the golden rule, I assume others want the same. I'm just helping when I criticise.
Is that wrong?

Debate me.

I sometimes don't agree and if the forum rules allow it i put forward my point

A false statement can need to be commented on although it's probably a waste of time

Debate can be interesting, playing devils advocate doubly so... If i have time or the inclination.

Help is always good but often it too is a waste of time

Although those are meaningful options I voted other, the main reasons being i want to and can be fun, and what is life without a little fun.