h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

hear hear

What a load of self-indulgent drivel from those who so often claim to be the reasonable, the enlightened, the intellectuals, the lovers and embracers of spirited debate.
I see the names of researchers above posts lamenting and condeming and fearful of what this means who too often go out of their way not to provoke thought in others but merely offence.
Yes you can expose the flaws of individual by offending them but you'll not get them engage intellectually with any issue through it, you offend people because it makes you feel more secure in your own prejudices not because you are great debaters. You're knowledgeable people, you're probably sucessful - but you jsut remind of Jonh Gibson.

amorphous, you couldn't be more wrong. Like Dr Ramadan, do we rational people "frighten you"? It sounds like it to me.



Remember, this is also a mechanism by which we can keep the forum in order by yikesing any "shrill" posts that are designed to provoke - provoke in a non-constructive manner that is.

Thanks Jimster for clearing this up for us. It'll be interesting to get feedback regarding SoRB's current issue...

Ste

Bloody 'eck!

I believe that The Founder would be spinning in his grave over this one.

"Remember, this is also a mechanism by which we can keep the forum in order by yikesing any "shrill" posts that are designed to provoke - provoke in a non-constructive manner that is."

Do you know, I never thought of that. Excellent point. Let's see if it works like that, shall we?

SoRB

I shall be fascinated to see if any of the deliberately provocative, offtopic postings I've just yikesed get hidden. Then we'll be able to judge whether the standard (be it old or new) is being applied consistently...

SoRB

Mudhooks, have you read post 35 yet?

Ste, how rational is your immediate dismissal of my view? You consider people your friends or peers, how well do you really know their motivation? When I first joined this site Hoovooloo was taking apparent exquisite pleasure in in debates with Justin the Preacher, is that because he was enjoying the exchange of ideas and views or was it because he enjoyed picking on the deluded?

Oh, you *didn't*, SoRB!

Anyhoo, Stealth, or amorphous, etc, please don't lump all intelligent and interested and interesting people under the *intellectual* umbrella. Especially as it is often used by some - such as yourself - as a term of scorn . . . I only know a few proper intellectuals on this site and most of them are happily debating away on threads that would make most of us .





az

amorphous:



There are some posters here - and many others on less civilised chat areas across the net - who feel it's perfectly OK to trash someone else's opinions. I *don't* mean disagreeing with their opinions, I mean saying what they think *of* the other poster's opinions. To clarify:

Preamble: poster A believes God is a cobweb. Poster B disagrees strongly. [Assume everyone knows this.]

Poster A posts "God is a cobweb".

Poster B posts "That's a load of nonsense".

The discussion degenerates.

Poster B had nothing to say. Poster B could've addressed the comment, but chose instead to attack poster A directly, by commenting on her opinion. Poster B's comment contained nothing but abuse. It has no semantic content, and no constructive purpose.

Pointless.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"Ste, how rational is your immediate dismissal of my view? You consider people your friends or peers, how well do you really know their motivation? When I first joined this site Hoovooloo was taking apparent exquisite pleasure in in debates with Justin the Preacher, is that because he was enjoying the exchange of ideas and views or was it because he enjoyed picking on the deluded?"

It is informed. I've been on this site for a good while.

I was a part of the JtP "debates" too. It was fun. I think SoRB takes pleasure in what he does in a similar way that I take pleasure in debating christian fundamentalism/creationists - some light mental excercise. Nothing wrong with that.

I take issue with the wooly idea that debates should be an "exchange of ideas and views". A good debate is opposing viewpoints going at it. That doesn't mean it has to be uncivil. However, if one side doesn't play by the rules then anything is fair game IMO.



Ste

Wow.

<>


For example, like the statement you just applauded so enthusiastically?:
"What a load of self-indulgent drivel from those who so often claim to be the reasonable, the enlightened, the intellectuals, the lovers and embracers of spirited debate"




Ste

>>"... is that because he was enjoying the exchange of ideas and views or was it because he enjoyed picking on the deluded?"

That's not an either/or question.
At least one other option is that (like many other people) Hoo wanted a deeply unpleasnt and bigoted individual to £$&! off somewhere else, and replied accordingly.
In that context, causing *some kind* of offence seems quite justifiable, even if causing similar levels of offence in other individuals might not be. Any amusement caused might simply be a bonus.


>>"Ste, how rational is your immediate dismissal of my view?"

Given the spirit with which you seemed to start off, I don't really think you're in much of a position to complain about the style of other people's replies to you.

<>

Um, yes.

Trust me, Justin cannot be offended. He has the Shield of God behind him (in front of him?), and basically nothing anyone ever says, or has said, to him ever penetrated that particular shield.


az

"...to see ourselves as others see us."

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Interesting cut & paste job, P-c. Who actually said those things?


az

A couple of quick observations. First, people with strong opinions should be prepared to defend them in a rational manner. Period. If you don't have the background knowledge to do so, then perhaps it would be better to choose another topic to debate. Or at least not be so positive that you're right.

Second, ideally, it's possible to present a point of view without becoming offensive. I offer point a and you counter with point b. All very civilized. But when you're rational and I'm a nutter, then point c becomes a rant and the entire thing breaks down.

My primary objection to debates on the Forum is that the good bits almost always take place when I'm unavailable to participate and by the time I get to the threads someone else has already made whatever point I would have.

>>"

"...to see ourselves as others see us."

Pattern-chaser"

If you're trying to say something, PC, maybe you should come out and say it more explicitly, to avoid potential misunderstanding.

>>"The discussion degenerates.
Poster B had nothing to say. Poster B could've addressed the comment, but chose instead to attack poster A directly, by commenting on her opinion."

Well, some people might consider the discussion had already degenerated at the point when someone started talking rubbish.
Commenting on someone's arguments isn't necessarily the same thing as commenting on someone directly. There is at least some difference between saying "That argument makes no sense" and "You are incapable of making sense"

>>"Poster B's comment contained nothing but abuse. It has no semantic content, and no constructive purpose."

No, it contained something like the information:

"What you posted makes no sense to me, and I suggest it would make no sense to a reasonable person"

It's quite obvious that in many contexts, "Bo!!ocks!" is a perfectly understandable and succinct reply that does much more than merely offend, may well even not cause any offence, and can carry a deal of information.
Therefore, a great deal depends on context, and much of what is allowable in a given context depends on consensus, not merely on one or two thin-skinned people expecting their ideas of the acceptable should be adhered to by everyone else.

<>

Well, no doubt as president you can't be everwhere at all times. So, basically, tough beans for you!

On a more serious note, it seems I am one of the few people who pronounces your name properly. And it turns out that almost nobody pronounces mine right. Heck!


az

"I worry, however, that immature people, people who cannot control their own emotional outbursts, the "pity me" shriekers who are unable for whatever reason to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, and the just plain dumb and dishonest, will see this new interpretation of the h2g2 rules as a licence to simply shut down anyone who disagrees with them. Indeed, it's already happening."

I don't think this is anything to do with that. There's an awful lot of personal abuse on some h2g2 threads and it's dragging the general standards of debate here down.

I'm not the greatest fan of the moderators but I do trust them to know the difference between disagreement and personal abuse.