Debate / Discussion (FYI)

[Tiberius]

Everyone should be aiming for the top three. The middle one is acceptable, but it doesn't really move the discussion along. The bottom three have no place here.

[leo-rcc]

I don't like how you say how we should debate, that is just so typical of you Rhaesha, you are an ass hat.

[Tiberius]

I don't like how you say how we should debate, that is just so typical of you Rhaesha, you are an ass hat.

You're an ass hat for spelling my name wrong ;-)

[reverendjeremiah]

Wow..that sucks...so we are all supposed to act like vulcans or something?

We are humans. Humans are emotional beings. Therefore I argue that letting your emotions become known is valid during an argument.

Of course, it should not be weighed on as hard evidence against a certain logical point, but it IS evidence of something very real in the one making a stance during an argument.

If someone admits they are racist, and i hate racists, then i argue that it is valid that i call the man a racist douche bag.

If that same racist thinks that racism is valid, and he hates me because I am a race mixer, then it is just as well in his corner to claim that i am a fool.

Also, responding to tone I consider valid as well. If someones tone is hateful sounding to me, then why cant i let them know that?

Meh, I dont know...in my opinion the more time you spend trying to organize human discussion the more you realize you cant do it, you merely stifle reality... and as much as people would like logic to rule the world, we humans are emotional beings, and we make judgements based on emotions many times throughout our lives.

Example:

other person: "This handful of people should die that this great handful of people may live."
Me: "Thats disgusting, how can you say such an uncaring thing?"
other person: "It is the most logical conclusion"

Now I am no longer able to argue anymore, because he is correct. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and it is very logical. I have also placed myself in jeopardy for replying to his logical arguement by skirting close to the bottom three rungs of your pyramid. On top of that, the racist can not only draw logical points to back up his claims, but he can also draw biological science help support many of his claims.

other person: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few..so minorities should be forced to comply with the needs of the many"

I cant logically argue against that. Sure, i can drag on about "human rights", but human rights are nothing more than idealisms, which are subject to change from person to person, time to time, where as logical arguments are immune to this. I can say "right to life", but from which logical source am I able to argue this right to life? There is not one single inherent universal property that suggests that biology has a right to life. My intent has clouded my capacity to reason in this situation, as my inent is to surely ignore reality and argue emotionally by bringing up idealisms.

So, scientifically and logically speaking the racist will and should win, but only from that standpoint alone. No racist has ever be won over by logic and science alone. they are won over by emotional arguments, empathy, and appeals to non-violence and cohabitation.

Of course I plan on trying to follow these rules..I just find them very constrictive and unrealistic dealing with human condition and discussion.

[Blam!]

vulcans or something?

Aren't Vulcans the atheists?

[Minimalist]

so we are all supposed to act like vulcans or something?

Can I accidentally use the Vulcan Death Grip on some of the morons?

[Blam!]

so we are all supposed to act like vulcans or something?

Can I accidentally use the Vulcan Death Grip on some of the morons?

That's funny.

By the way, reverendjeremiah. According to Star Trek series, Vulcans are also emotional beings - they did best to contain their emotions.

[reverendjeremiah]

so we are all supposed to act like vulcans or something?

Can I accidentally use the Vulcan Death Grip on some of the morons?

That would be nice. Just a neck pinch and "ack!" down for the count..I win th argument!

Also, Im not trying to be an asshat, but I want to see the logical arguments to support the forum rules below (because the rules state that it is okay to discuss the rules):

Atheist Forums reserves the right to enforce the following rules as the staff see fit. This is so that people cannot use the literal meaning of the rules to defeat the spirit of the rules.

How can the members be held to logic, when the staff has the ability to enforce the rules as they see fit? could you please post the logical formula for this conclusion?

We believe in freedom of speech / expression, which means you can discuss your ideas without fear of censorship or limitation, provided you are not breaking the rules & guidelines below.

Please post the logical formulations that support a "belief" in freedom of speech. I also want to know how the staff can enforce only logical discussion and NOT break the rule of "without fear of censorship or limitation". Logic only sounds like a huge limitation to me.

Attacks made in jest (with the understanding of both/all parties - tacit or otherwise) are allowed, as are off-handed comments that do not escalate into flame wars. Staff will take the context of each insult into consideration before taking action.

How is this logical and not emotional? As long as I post something illogical and it doesnt produce a flame war, then it is okay? If that is true then my warning was uncalled for, as there was no flame war between me and mehmet. Then again, the staff can arbitrarily decide what is in compliance and what is not... show me the logical formulas behind this?

Members are not permitted to add any member of staff to their ignore list. Doing so will result in a warning and persistent offenders will be banned.

A long time ago i got into an argument with Tack. I put him on ignore which instantly got me banned. I never received a warning not to put him on ignore. Logic is flawless, if members are to be held to the upper tiers of logical discussion, then why are not the staff also included?

Although we cannot be responsible for private information you choose to reveal in your posts. Members, moderators, and administrators are not allowed to make public the personal information of other member either on this forum or elsewhere. Anyone caught posting another person's private information without proper consent will be banned immediately.

What is the logical formula that backs up this "right to privacy"? Or is it an illogical idealism?

Lets be honest here... logic is something that is inhuman and very difficult for people to follow.

I wonder if my warning level will be rated up again for asking these questions?

[Violet]

Up is down and down is up so the top is calling you an ass hat.

BUT NOT IF I STAND ON MY HEAD!

[reverendjeremiah]

LILLY!!!!!!

Im so very happy you are back!



..and just in time...they are suggesting we all be logical machines up in this bitch...LOL...lets give them a "one two" tag team!