You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>    >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


luvnmexsun
Luvnmexsun  (Level: 147.4 - Posts: 711)
Tue, 2nd Dec '08 10:29 PM

SUGGESTIONS

Read Jeremy's "Curious..." thread. It explains this thread.

This will be the place for ideas that you would like for the group. Mostly process orientated for how we can enjoy ourselves here.

Thanks for contributing.

oogie54
Oogie54  (Level: 201.2 - Posts: 1120)
Tue, 2nd Dec '08 11:52 PM

If someone would teach Oogie how to type and use a computer, and maybe coffee and doughnuts every Friday?

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 12:48 AM

I'm thinking that maybe some issues regarding debate should be clarified? I've been out of the "scene" for quite some time....I'm a little rusty.

Seems to me that debate can do positive things for the group. For one, it helps to clarify each others position when somebody adds substance or further information to a post, while we are testing each others weak points. It helps us to get to know each others positions better at any rate when we offer further information. In a philosophy group this is probably inescapeable. Second, we can find out to what degree we can "meet minds" on various issues. I don't see anything wrong with this. For example, if Sun who probably has no intention to change my mind does in fact change my mind on an issue, because she has a better position than I do, than this would be a positive gain for me. These are two positive gains I can see coming from "debate", so to speak.

I kind of think the word "debate" has gotten a bad reputation over time. I'm not thinking here of anything like "modern presidential debates" where they skirt the issues and change the subject and don't answer the question, or the kind of "debate" you see between husbands and wives on the Jerry Springer show....very emotional. I'm thinking of the kind of debate we've been having in the "Love is..." thread, where we are really just clarifying and offering information and views. If someone changes someone on THAT thread so far, it will probably be accidental as far as I'm concerned. There is a debate going on there, to an extent, but I would call that "soft" debating, which has more to do with clarification and offering of information.

I guess knowing at what point to end a discussion would be essential, there would have to be rules regarding our posts, such as when name calling occurs, which I can't really see happening with this group, or when two people just keep repeating themselves, which I would view as a "deadlock", and something we should come back to later when more has been learned or when something fresh can be added to the conversation. I really don't see us all walking away with exactly the same views, nor would I desire it. Personally though, if I didn't walk away changed at all in my thinking I would be severely disappointed.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 1:18 AM

What I was trying to say in my previous post I guess I can say it a little quicker and more succintcly in this one. I'm thinking that the "goal" in our soft debates should be a clarification of positions, and a clarification of reasons why, rather than changing someones views. If someone changes their views on accident great, but I would prefer that to be an "accident" so to speak. Obviously, some of my comments are anticipating the kind of threads regarding politics that I saw in the SaltyDog recently, most notably Texlewees posts....ugh. I don't think those kind of posts will happen here.....but it could be the end of this group if it ever were to happen, and I like this group, so look at me worry ahead of time.

salzypat
Salzypat  (Level: 156.3 - Posts: 5315)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 1:34 AM

I think you might be worrying a little ahead of time - but ground rules never hurt and can be helpful.

I don't offer my beliefs from the Christian's viewpoint to change anyone's beliefs. If it should happen, great, but that is not my goal. I am not here to save souls (need to worry about my own first!) but to share my personal beliefs. I might quote an occasional Bible verse, but I don't intend to load this thread with dozens of scripture quotes.

I am finding the challenges or questions to my beliefs to be beneficial to me. I have to dig deep into my memory for some information I've learned along the way and I have to think about how I want to explain it.

So question away!


davidf
Davidf  (Level: 102.1 - Posts: 746)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 2:19 PM

I think all religious views should be discussed as it shapes people and how they act and involve themselves in this world. I was brought up in a Christian household, went to private church school, my father was a vicar and yet I embrace Buddhist philosophy.

salzypat
Salzypat  (Level: 156.3 - Posts: 5315)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 5:56 PM

I was in a Bible study with an older lady - I believe her background was Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but she attended our UCC - and her comment always was "If another church has a truth, I want to know it."

I think one can be a faithful, practicing Christian and still embrace some tenets of other faiths.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 6:22 PM

I too think that Religion has to be talked about, I'd hate to leave any realm of experience or thinking out of the equation. I'm actually looking forward to it, I virtually know nothing about buddhist philosophy, would love to learn more. Christianity I'm slightly more educated about, but look forward to perspectives on that tradition as well. Glad we are agreed that the group should be more of an exchange rather than an attempt to change. I think that will save us some headaches down the road. I look forward to learning from both of you. Interesting David.....he comes out of the closet!! lol. Whether Schopenhauers views actually had a lot in common with Buddhism or not, I think he claimed they did, surprised I didn't pick up that sooner!

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 7:53 PM

Just out of curiosity, is anyone here interested in "formal" debates? It is part of the philosophical tradition.....I have "some" interest in them, and some trepidation as well, I prefer something more akin to a "knowledge" exchange, but maybe they would be beneficial to the group. To learn more, to add to my knowledge. I guess I sense the possibility of hostility or hurt feelings here...but we could try a few, "experiment" with them if there is high interest in them.....we would need rules, the outsiders could all moderate, we would adhere to certain standards, etc.

If the concept of a "winner" and "loser" that comes with debates also implies that the loser is wrong and the winner is "right", I don't think they would be helpful in light of the goals of the group, which is merely to change ourselves and to learn, but we could think about them anyways. Perhaps not having a winner, merely an open ended debate/discussion, an eternal debate with no winners or losers, unless someone wants to abandon their own position in favor of another view, or just move on to another thread? I was kind of looking at the differing styles of debating out there, and the Karl Popper format seemed like a possibility, although, without the time restrictions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

I don't want to re-invent the wheel here, to me it seems slightly inescapable within philosophy. If you are going to present a view, you are going to have to "explain" yourself, offer reasons why, which is pretty much "arguing". Some of those "reasons why" are going to be "debatable", and if I offer an illegitimate reason why, I would hope it would be challenged so that I could at the very least put my argument on firmer ground. That doesn't mean I'm going to change my views. Maybe I would change my views or "thoughts" in time, maybe not, but to me it seems to me that this is what I would like people to do, to say the least. What do you guys think about the subject??? Personally I like challenges to my thinking, but as an amateur I know it would take alot of work and free time were I to engage in one, so the open ended format seems best to me, with no real winners or losers declared by an external party. I think a debate where only I could declare myself the mistitled "loser" would be best.....

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 8:14 PM

On the topic of "persuasion"....if we did have debates, I imagine the technique known as "persuasion" or maybe "rhetoric" would be involved in my posts, I think as long as everyone knows the persuasion is what I have used to convince myself....and is not an attempt to persuade those reading my posts....I think this will be handled "properly". What do y'all think?

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 8:21 PM

And if somebody does get persuaded, well oh well then.....that was their choice.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 8:26 PM

I guess in all of our views there is probably going to be some either some "faith" or "irrationality", and I think not having true winners or losers would account for this and give everyone the feeling that such "faith" is okay with the group, the purpose wasn't to change someone anyways.....merely to clarify, to further our knowledge, to increase our skills, etc. I would like to give my personal opinion that I'd like to participate in "this kind" of debate...

luvnmexsun
Luvnmexsun  (Level: 147.4 - Posts: 711)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 8:37 PM

Jeremy, I keep getting this vision of you walking around, wringing your hands and forgetting to eat.

I love your enthusiasm! Let's keep this an informal exchange for now. Many of us are working and involved in life obligations...and in way different time zones.

I have been having trouble with the timing of posts...it's a difficult format, I think, for exchange of ideas. Often, I missed a chunk of discussion and really want to respond to something said hours (days) ago and the train of thought has moved on. It feels like interrupting to go back.

I have never attempted this kind of conversation before. Face-to-face, it's easy to discuss and read people's responses. Does anyone else have more experience in cyberforums with suggestions to handle this?



smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 9:04 PM

Funny, no I'm not wringing my hands, just trying to come up with ideas for a "type" of debate I would engage in. Maybe I'm just thinking through things out loud, groping in the dark hoping someone will jump in and save me. Anyone who wants to participate in a timed debate with clear winners and losers is certainly allowed.....I understand your lack of interest in a debate but I have one...., I think it would be fun for me, logic is the ideal, dunno if I could live up to it though. I don't see a huge problem with interrupting a thread Sun, especially if its been dead for awhile, or if the option is available and a new topic has come up, why not start a new thread if the thread has moved on?? That's what popped into my head anyways.....

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 9:06 PM

Maybe I'm just setting "boundaries" for any debate I engage in, though we are all very different people out there...

luvnmexsun
Luvnmexsun  (Level: 147.4 - Posts: 711)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 9:15 PM

I have no problem with you thinking all you want...and thinking out loud here. I enjoy it.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 3rd Dec '08 10:43 PM

I have no idea why Sun, but you crack me up sometimes. Maybe I should just start a debate thread where anyone who wants to participate can work this out with me seperately.


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus