Why Do You Write Opposing Answers?

[ChristineM]

I really get the Golden Rule

I go by a modified version, "do unto others as you would have done unto you... Only do it first"

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well I voted Other, given that I try to contribute if I have better knowledge or anything that might contribute to some discussion - which obviously isn't that often - and I usually duck out of discussions that I couldn't care less about, given that opinions and beliefs are often set in stone. Why waste time on such? But we all no doubt have visions of how our future should unfold (as a species or as nations) so it often is impossible to keep one's big mouth shut!

 

[Augustus]

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"?

Archaeology, LIDAR, DNA, machine learning, etc. anything that gives information is good

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

For me, it really depends:

- sometimes, I'm looking for a way to adopt the position the other person is arguing, but I need help getting over what I see as an obstacle.

- sometimes, I want to test how well-supported my own ideas are, so I throw them into a pit to fight against someone else's opposing ideas.

- sometimes, what's motivating me is just the idea that evil shouldn't go unchallenged.

- sometimes, I'm trying to demonstrate for other people reading what's wrong with the opposing argument.

- sometimes, I just want the other person to understand that their view isn't universally accepted.

- sometimes, I'm just venting about something that bothers me. If I can't shout at, say, a caterer who ruined a gay couple's wedding reception, at least I can shout at (within the bounds of RF's rules) someone who's arguing that the caterer did the right thing.

- very rarely, I'm trying to convince the other person to abandon their view and adopt mine instead.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. Now stop criticizing how I behave on the forum.

Did I mention that I jump to conclusions and think everything is about me as well?

How can you say this? You don't jump to conclusions and never have I seen someone posting that is less about themselves than you.

Edit: I have heard that you are a fashionista of the highest order too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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 do not pretend to be good at it, but one of my main intentions for starting a thread is to see all the ideas that are expressed and then evaluate my position based on new information. I have altered or amended my position based on what I have learned. Not often, but it has happened.

I think having your ideas scrutinized and criticized is a good thing.