Info: Why forum discussion are bound to escalate

[aridash]

opps........

 

[aridash]

Logic does not allow the deduction you've made above.
(Actually, it is a deliberate misinterpretation of empirical data, logic got nothing to do with it - you can, at best, set up a theorem from it, and then try to falsify it)
That people always try to make such a deduction look like a logically derived statement is sad enough.

so... are you going to refute the logic then? im very aware its a misinterpretation, but is it not logically sound proposition? after saying so much on how precisely this sort of reply is not valid, are you just going to leave me hanging with a responce that amounts to "you're wrong". more to the point, are you going to deny the existance of logical fallacies and paradoxes which defy logical explaination?

 

[wizzszz]

so... are you going to refute the logic then? im very aware its a misinterpretation, but is it not logically sound proposition? after saying so much on how precisely this sort of reply is not valid, are you just going to leave me hanging with a responce that amounts to "you're wrong". more to the point, are you going to deny the existance of logical fallacies and paradoxes which defy logical explaination?

aridash is a spacemonkey

is a syntactically perfectly valid statement and you can build any logical construction utilizing this statement.
It is, however, not even close to semantically valid (unless you have turned into a space monkey overnight).

Mixing correct logic syntax with invalid sematics will ofc look valid on first glance... but if you "feed" bullshit into your "logics machine", the output will not be any better.


And i didn't brush you off with a "you're wrong" - you perfectly know that semantics and syntax are different things and made that statement only for the sake of an argument - or am i mistaken?

And i do not deny the existance of logical fallacies, they are a product of exactly what i've outlined above.

And a logical explanation is not possible when you lack data - that does not mean it is impossible to find an explanation... and this applies to paradoxes as well.

 

[Thorn]

Discussion evolves, just as the chicken who laid said egg. But I feel the egg was around well before the chicken.

 

[Shadowsong]

...
there is no way to check how close to "perfect" your intuition actually is - a problem that will not arise from using logic.
.

Oh. Who has "perfect" logic? Who has "perfect" insight upon which to base the logic? Come now... logic is as fallible as intuition. As you yourself pointed out, it depends upon the skill of the practitioner, so I ask again, who is a "perfect" practitioner of logic who can determine how close to "perfect" your logic actually is? Where can I purchase a logicometer? (You see what I did there? My bad.)

...
And, how are you going to explain it to someone else when you have nothing but intuition to base your conclusion on?
It may be still perfectly valid to you, but outside of your own strawberry universe nobody will subscribe to your conclusions when all you have is "i had the perfect intuition" - you will still need to apply logics to underpin your point.

You assume I need anyone to subscribe to my conclusions. My primary concern is to utilise and exercise my intuition successfully, regardless of whether I can explain HOW it works. Besides, what logic CAN be deployed when "you have nothing but intuition to base your conclusion on" ?


...and "strawberry universe"..... really? I concede it may only be in my "own universe" where my intuition holds true, but what is your logical reason for describing it as "strawberry" ?

You seem to believe that following intuition precludes all logic. It does not. They are complementary abilities which allow us to adapt very quickly to new challenges.

Perhaps you believe that following logic precludes all intuition. I may be inclined to agree with that position, but I have an intuition that I may miss something really useful if I do.

 

[aridash]

is a syntactically perfectly valid statement and you can build any logical construction utilizing this statement.
It is, however, not even close to semantically valid (unless you have turned into a space monkey overnight).

Mixing correct logic syntax with invalid sematics will ofc look valid on first glance... but if you "feed" bullshit into your "logics machine", the output will not be any better.

what has the semantics of your statment got to do with refuting the previous proposition i made?

of course it was created for the sake of arguement but the semantics (and linguistic syntax) of my proposition are valid. is the logic valid? i think it is and as such it shows the existance of fallible logic. you seem to be claiming that if the fallacy comes about due to langauge tricks, its not really logic. the meaning of "spacemonkey" is undefined or not known, therefore it could be true.

the "logics machine" isn't subjective or prejudice about the words and subject its applied to - this is why it can be so powerful a tool. its down to our knowledge of the words and meanings involved to validate the input and outputs. and our intuition.

i sence a view of logic founded in pure maths, overlooking that it is also (originally?) derived from philosophy.

 

[wizzszz]

Oh. Who has "perfect" logic? Who has "perfect" insight upon which to base the logic? Come now... logic is as fallible as intuition. As you yourself pointed out, it depends upon the skill of the practitioner, so I ask again, who is a "perfect" practitioner of logic who can determine how close to "perfect" your logic actually is? Where can I purchase a logicometer? (You see what I did there? My bad.)

Errm, what? You came up with the "perfect logic", i just picked up your example - i never claimed that someone has perfect logic..

And maybe i worded it somehow misleading, but if you come to a conclusion using intuition you will need to verify it... and then you need logic.

You assume I need anyone to subscribe to my conclusions. My primary concern is to utilise and exercise my intuition successfully, regardless of whether I can explain HOW it works. Besides, what logic CAN be deployed when "you have nothing but intuition to base your conclusion on" ?

I've said it earlier already: Intuition can be the spark to base a theory on, and logic to verify/falsify it - dunno what you try to make of my words here - and whether i "assume you need anyone to subscribe"???

Is it my english or why do you misinterprete everything i said? Out for a fight?

...and "strawberry universe"..... really? I concede it may only be in my "own universe" where my intuition holds true, but what is your logical reason for describing it as "strawberry" ?

My apologies if your universe is raspberry.
(Now i am pretty sure you're just out for a fight here, whatother reason could you have to refer to "strawberry universe" - it was just meant in jest, you have read dozends of my posts before, please do not pretend you never noticed that i add the odd joke here and there...)

You seem to believe that following intuition precludes all logic. It does not. They are complementary abilities which allow us to adapt very quickly to new challenges.

I seem to believe? I never said that, i never even hinted that - read my posts please.

Perhaps you believe that following logic precludes all intuition. I may be inclined to agree with that position, but I have an intuition that I may miss something really useful if I do.

I never said that intuition is useless, you made that up - again, please read my posts.


But maybe take a chill pill before you reply again - you sound very, very aggressive.

 

[Otoko]

not

These emotes are fun

 

[Butch C]

Like watching a three legged turtle swim in circles .. until it dies.

hmm, i can understand a two legged turtle swimming in circles until it dies, if both legs were on one side of its body of course but a turtle with 3 legs would surely swim at 45 degrees and eventually make it to the river bank, obviously i have no research or facts to back this up but i compared it to 4 oarsmen in a boat and one lost his oar.

edit: Today i got 3 friends (1 owns a 4 man rowboat, luckily) and went down to the river and experimented to find that yes we did in fact go almost 45 degrees and made it to the river bank after a while, this obviously doesn't take into account the current and size of the said turtle and other possible contributing factors but i think you will agree your turtle remark is flawed to say the least.

This is to demonstrate the part of a thread where some idiot (that would be me ) pics some minute part of someones post (that would be mom's ) and rambles on pure shit just to try and show how clever they are even though it has nothing to do with the original thread and makes them look like and idiot (that would be me again ) also because turtles are people too and have feelings.

 

[jaywalker]

Okay, bored with sweating so I came back here for some amusment

Jay and Wizz, you both claim that the other is making personal attacks. Thing is you are both making attacks, trying to hide them as condecending advice. Neither one of you appears to be trying to convince the other of anything, instead you guys appear to be grandstanding. Your arguing for the audience, trying to gain popularity. If you ever watch Canadian politics you will see that they argue in much the same fashion.

Just my two cents and not an attack on anyone Well except for maybe politicians

For the record: wizzszz is not hiding is personal attacks as condescending advice. They are perfectly blatant. (Unless I missed something earlier in the thread, ofc)
Neither am I hiding personal attacks as condescending advice. I'm just not really interested in attacking Wizzszz, here.

Consider me a liar if you like, but i tell it like it is, from my own POV.

Now here is another way that flame-wars develop: people know that certain people have crossed swords in the past, and anticipate that the same thing will happen again . When they don't see any blatant attacks, they look a bit closer for the veiled attacks, and sure enough they'll find them; because it just isn't possible to put things carefully enough that people can't misread all sorts of unintended nuances into what you've said.. Then they point these imaginary insults out, and...

Well, wizzszz didn't wait for that to happen , or else it might not have happened at all . He decided to pick out the veiled attacks for himself. I don't know whether he really believes that I meant to attack him, or if he was just being mischievous, but that's what he did.

When i first saw this thread I was really impressed. I thought that wizzszz was sincerely trying to address the flame-war issue (and maybe he was. I'm just a lot less certain of that now) ; and his opening post was really good. I had more than half-a mind to +rep him for it. And I maybe will , yet, because his later outbursts don't alter the OP was good. They do make me inclined re-assess his motives though.

So I decided to contribute, and at first I was pleased because we seemed to having a perfectly amicable and reasonable discussion and proving the cynics wrong. Wizzszz was going up in my estimation all the time. Then came the strawmen etc. And after I pointed out the strawmen (without getting mad) , next came the wild accusations and the personal attacks.

Well, maybe there were some veiled personal attacks before that, but I was blind to them, and I don't want to go back and try to dig them out, because like I said, it's too easy to find such things if you're looking with a prejudiced eye, and I don't imagine I'm any different to anybody else in this much. If I didn't see attacks before they got blatant, well that's good enough for me, and I would definitely give him the benefit of the doubt in that.

jay

 

[wizzszz]

For the record: wizzszz is not hiding is personal attacks as condescending advice. They are perfectly blatant. (Unless I missed something earlier in the thread, ofc)
Neither am I hiding personal attacks as condescending advice. I'm just not really interested in attacking Wizzszz, here.

No, not trying to hide anything here - Jay was somewhat nice 'til around post #40, then it blew up.

But ofc, Jay is totally innocent (conveniently ignoring i.e. post #51)
(That was sarcasm btw.)

Add some hairsplicing bullshit about something that is, at best, of marginal relevance to the thread topic...
(I mean, c'mon, it's not "Intuition vs. Logic", nor would such a thread make any real sense after we BOTH stated that intuition is the inital flash/spark/whatever to set up an idea/theory and logics is vital to verify/falsify it - where exactly do we disagree? And do we disagree at all? Or is it just about "how do we word it"?)

Well, wizzszz didn't wait for that to happen , or else it might not have happened at all . He decided to pick out the veiled attacks for himself. I don't know whether he really believes that I meant to attack him, or if he was just being mischievous, but that's what he did.

I've pointed out what i perceive as an attack/insult, Silver Ice added some thoughts, too - dunno what to tell you here if you don't even read the thread you refer to all the time...
(Why was it even necessary to distinguish "discussion" from "debate" when nobody (not even you) cares about the proper use here? One can only guess what made you bring this up at all...
And on top of that, being overly hairsplicing is as harmful to a debate as flaming i'd say, especially when the context leaves no doubt about the intended meaning)



Actually, the fate of the poor three-legged turtle has become way more interesting than the tedious race for the perfect balance between intuition and logics... *yawn*

 

[Coop_]

so... are you going to refute the logic then? im very aware its a misinterpretation, but is it not logically sound proposition? after saying so much on how precisely this sort of reply is not valid, are you just going to leave me hanging with a responce that amounts to "you're wrong". more to the point, are you going to deny the existance of logical fallacies and paradoxes which defy logical explaination?

Actually, in the case of your example, formal logic can be used effectively. It's a clear case of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this") logical fallacy.

 

[jaywalker]

(Why was it even necessary to distinguish "discussion" from "debate" when nobody (not even you) cares about the proper use here? One can only guess what made you bring this up at all...
And on top of that, being overly hairsplicing is as harmful to a debate as flaming i'd say, especially when the context leaves no doubt about the intended meaning)

OK, guys and gals,

for those who might have missed it, here's the pernicious remark that Wizzszz keep retropectively labelling as irrelevant, inflammatory hair-splitting (though he was totally OK about it initially, and said that, as a native Geman-speaker, he wasn't aware of a difference in usage of those terms, and asked me to clarify, which I did)

I thoroughly agree with you Wizzszz (surprise, surprise )

...but then what we have here is not a debate, but a discussion...which not only allows for more that two POVs, there's no onus on any participant to "prove" one POV to be "correct" above another.

Where things often go wrong, IMO, is that something which really should be a discussion is treated, instead, as a debate.

Therafter, the discussion largely devolved into one or two debates concerning side-issues.

Now, I'll happily accept those words being used quite loosely, when the intended meaning is clear from context, but I fail to see how I could have made that point without making a distinction! Or why that point should be considerered irrelevant.

Can we drop this now? I'm sure you can find better examples, if you look for them Wizzszz, but really, whether or not Jaywalker, or anybody else., splits hairs unnecessarily, is ....well, pretty damned irrelevant.

jay

 

[Otoko]

There, now do you guys feel better having got that all off your chest? Well anyway, I look forward to your guys next debate. Can we get a forum category just for these two guys? We could call it the JayWiz.

 

[filibert]

I also consider dinstinction between debate and discussion does not have real sense, even if sementic says it has This brasses air but nothing else. The only sensible distinction is you can discuss about nothing but never debate about nothing

As for the original question: there are 2 (and more) very different aspects that explain this.

1) discussions are bound to escalate because that is our true nature. We can consider all that define human is an opposition culture-nature. Our nature is a bunch of hormons, bound to feelings, visceral things. Our culture is what we create to counter natural events and ameliorate our surviving rate, individual or group. Beeing agressice is natural, pretend to understand someone else is something cultural. To increase our cultural (non-agressive) answers has obvious advantages in terms of viability, as basicaly a conflict is nothing but at least 2 persons trying to access same ressource at same time, naturally leading either to one dead or to a cooperation to get the ressource if it is less dangerous. Culture and non-agressive behavior, has to be teached as it is never at any moment something our hormons lead to, nor is imprinted in genes as long as there is no specific selection of adrenalin (and other behavioral modulators) production genes and responsive tissues state. Death penalty was one of our first cultural solutions to counter agressivity, because we were hoping the process will in long term leave (select) only pacific people, before genetical heridity understanding (Mendel) and still now after. Point is when one reads something he does not agree the only natural answer is "angry or not" not " i agree or not".
To resume: agressivity is our nature, not a deviance. The deviance is to counter it with cultural artefacts

2) the cathartic effect: Jung, Freud etc explained that we have tons of pulsions that are stoped before beeing expressed, by social and personal filters. We have learned to deal with the hide of these pulsions, but we still need to expulse them by any way we can. One is sport, another is art, some are fighting, some go into woods to yell shitnames. And some do flaming posts.
This vision fits more to modern citizen living level. We don't have to fight for our survival day by day as a hunter. we work to buy food and pay the roof and then all rest is comfort. Our survivance is much more due to social adaptation than to environment pressure and selection. indeed if i want to keep eating and having a roof I need to keep a future in my company. So I'd better not say to my boss "I want to fuck your wife so badly that i need to masturbate every night, just not to jump on her every day". So I keep my pulsion inside, and it leads to a "loaded" pulsuional state, ie I still need to expulse my very natural desire that I hide, in another -more social- way. And maybe this way will be to be in a passive-agressive state, and I will enter in a conflict, not by ideal implication, but to get rid of my agressive state.

What i'm trying to say is when you're hoping everybody could be peaceful and discuss everything beeing acurate and open to other ideas, this is to me as you were hoping we can exclude our body fluids, extract our aims from our bodies, thus want to negate our fundamental biological functions.
I tend to think that our agressivity is like a curse in a hilgly "civilizated" society, but getting rid of it would also mean have no feelings anymore, thus beeing computers.

In my opinion, the ideal is not to avoid agressivity (as it was possible), it is to be able to go through the form and take the sense (if there is one). I hate the " problem was not the sense, but the form" because if the person got the sense, it should be largely able to go through the form and ignore the underliing agressivity. Same when you see an escalating thread: some are just wiling to expulse their frustrations, better this form than nothing and at the end the guy kills all his family and suicides. These guys are 99% of persons that never said a word louder. We need formal agressivity, and in a form of a post it can be considered it is actually a good way to do. So what I usually do is answering the original poster, and when it goes through 40 pages I only stop to further messages from OP to see if he ads some things, but I don't answer to the other ppl. I started that method on a european sport channel forum, where 90% of comments are ppl insulting other ppl and never answering the base article. I consider the trolls are working for their own health ,-)

It is to me a passionating debate (yeah yeah or discussion^^) so sorry for the must-be-boring too long post

filibert

 

[jaywalker]

I also consider dinstinction between debate and discussion does not have real sense, even if sementic says it has This brasses air but nothing else. The only sensible distinction is you can discuss about nothing but never debate about nothing

OK. an atrox is a type of mob as a debate is a type of discussion, so distinction between those makes no real sense either

So before we trip up and offend you with hair-spitting, when we talk about mobs, will you please tell us the only sensible distinction between a trox and a mob? ( I honestly can't think of one myself)

Sorry but couldn't resist that

As for the rest. Hmm, catharsis is healthy, Can;t disagree with that. Maybe you're right, and people are just venting RL aggression...sometimes. But if they are going to direct it at the wrong people, it would be only fair to explain what they;re doing. Or better still, go to a forum that's designed for that purpose. Or....well actually a forum discussion is a crazy place for such venting, because if it's heavily disguised it's not very cathartic ; and if it isn't, you piss people off and get banned. And if you suggest to someone "Oh! you're just venting aggression" then you get banned for making personal attacks. In short, its no better a situation than your office, because you still have to watch what you say, and people also have to watch what they say back. Maybe sports forums are different, though (since sport and catharsis go together so well)

For myself, call me naive, but I think people are a lot more complex and interesting than Freud gives them credit for. Its not all about sex, aggression etc. with a thin veneer of socialisation overlaid. Look into Jung a bit more. if you have time; he paints a much more likable an optimistic picture of the human psyche; and i do believe he's really onto something , thank goodness.

jay

 

[jaywalker]

PS. @ Filibert . I think we should have a subforum where people can say what they really think and be done with it. Thatwould be really cathartic. But it's not gonna happen here *sigh*. So yes we do have to put up with the consequences of people repressing things when we're trying to talk about something else. But it's really not cathartic IMO, not here, it isn't.

jay

 

[Otoko]

Looks like round two is going to begin.

 

[filibert]

For myself, call me naive, but I think people are a lot more complex and interesting than Freud gives them credit for. Its not all about sex, aggression etc. with a thin veneer of socialisation overlaid. Look into Jung a bit more. if you have time; he paints a much more likable an optimistic picture of the human psyche; and i do believe he's really onto something , thank goodness.
jay

I 100% agree to this, and i've read Jung but i'm a biologist, so to me freud was the good example to give too because these guys were not understanding a shit about biology and endocrinolgy, but they explained with another model what our hormons are working faster than our brains and we have to deal with. What we were calling "the devil" just a few years before. What is belonging to our nature. They tried to make us understand that we all have this violence.
I think obviously it is more complex, about love and sexuality and social links like friendship, but not on visceral agressive feelings. Would you even say sometimes (if you ever do) "i'm in a bad mood" if you was able to turn it into good mood?

Then i have to admit: flaming and troll posts are sometimes a big laugh to read, so I like it like so, the more as i'm not doing it...it would be boring without them let's face it! I then also hate them when they pollute a thread i planed to read.

ps: for sport forums: there are also many ppl like me that never enter the insults game and just comment articles, but my only way to deal with all the agressivity there is to see it as I explained in my precedent post, or I leave the site..before answering lol

 

[filibert]

There, now do you guys feel better having got that all off your chest? Well anyway, I look forward to your guys next debate. Can we get a forum category just for these two guys? We could call it the JayWiz.

I want to form a triumvirat is possible?

 

[jaywalker]

There, now do you guys feel better having got that all off your chest? Well anyway, I look forward to your guys next debate. Can we get a forum category just for these two guys? We could call it the JayWiz.

I want to form a triumvirat is possible?

Yeah, why not? WizFilJay...ooooops no, JayFilWiz, arghhhhh.... FilWizJay?

Hmm, nope, better not, i guess

 

[jaywalker]

I 100% agree to this, and i've read Jung but i'm a biologist, so to me freud was the good example to give too because these guys were not understanding a shit about biology and endocrinolgy, but they explained with another model what our hormons are working faster than our brains and we have to deal with. What we were calling "the devil" just a few years before. What is belonging to our nature. They tried to make us understand that we all have this violence.
I think obviously it is more complex, about love and sexuality and social links like friendship, but not on visceral agressive feelings. Would you even say sometimes (if you ever do) "i'm in a bad mood" if you was able to turn it into good mood?

Ahhh. yes, i get where you're coming from.
Tempted to go off at a tangent, but resisting


jay

 

[Otoko]

Ahhh. yes, i get where you're coming from.
Tempted to go off at a tangent, but resisting


jay

Gratz, that's the first sensible thing you have said so far.

Okay the score board reads;
Jay-1
Wiz-0

Will Wiz come back with some common sence to tie the score? Or does Jay walk away with the title? Stay tuned for further fight results.

Side note; Am I goading them on too much?