REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Rules for a good discussion

POSTED BY: REDREAD
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 13:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1409
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, August 10, 2012 10:43 AM

REDREAD

The poster formerly known as yinyang.


Found this while cleaning up my hard drive and thought of RWED.



ETA: If anyone needs an image description, let me know and I'll whip one up.


||| Blog post explaining my name change: http://www.fireflyfans.net/blog.aspx?bid=9414 |||

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2012 1:17 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I would really REALLY love to see rappy and geezer sign on to this! But, we'd have to add a few more caveats... no ignoring SOME (few) facts over the vast majority of facts, no straw-manning, no innuendo, no ad hominen (name-calling), and no declaring victory and then bailing out of a thread.

Hey, if rappy is willing to try it, I'll be happy to talk to him. If not... well, as they say, it takes two to tango. I've given up entirely on some ppl!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2012 1:31 PM

MAL4PREZ


LOL! I've totally been in threads like that! And not from the obvious suspects... I know very well to ignore those. But even from other folks it seems to happen again and again: "I will now state my position and will allow no discussion which in any way requires me to actually *think* about the rationality of my beliefs..."

But then, this is the internet after all. No one here is actually required to be willing or able to debate.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2012 1:41 PM

WHOZIT


Soon you libs will have RWFF all to yourselves, ENJOY IT!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2012 2:17 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Soon you libs will have RWFF all to yourselves, ENJOY IT!



You keep saying that - yet you won't go the fuck away.

And boo hoo, asking for reason is going to drive away folks like WhoZit.

Does anyone see a problem there?


Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2012 3:48 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I would really REALLY love to see rappy and geezer sign on to this! But, we'd have to add a few more caveats... no ignoring SOME (few) facts over the vast majority of facts, no straw-manning, no innuendo, no ad hominen (name-calling), and no declaring victory and then bailing out of a thread.



Funny. I was gonna say the same about you, Niki, and Kiki.

No point in discussing it with Mike and Storymark, since they've just devolved into trolls.


ETA: I've printed out the "Our Discussion" picture.

As I see it, the killers for many of us will be:

"The person asserting a position bears the onus of demonstrating the proof"

"Do not introduce a new argument while another argument has yet to be resolved"

"Do not move on to another argument if it is shown that a fact you have relied on is inaccuarte"

However, I'm game to sign on if others will.

I suggest that we all print out the relevent rules and try to abide by them.

This may reduce the traffic in RWED somewhat.

ETA again:

If you're just goofin' on something in a thread, rather than participating in a serious discussion, please make that clear.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2012 4:07 PM

STORYMARK


LOL!

You're always good for a laugh, old man.

No wonder you took issue with Sig's suggested additions - bailing from threads is one of your favorite things to do.


"Do not introduce a new argument while another argument has yet to be resolved"

You mean, like going "But Clinton!" all the time, or any of your many, many, maaaaany stabs at absurd equivocation?

Thanks for the laugh, though.


Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2012 5:07 PM

FREMDFIRMA




If I said anything relevant, I'd be a hypocrite, sooo....

This was more my perception of the place.
Flame Warriors
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2012 5:30 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Hmmm, a very masculine definition I would say.

People don't need to stop conversations because they are not going to change their mind. You have no idea when you begin what you will think and feel in the future. It may be that you had the discussion and COMPLETELY disagreed at the time, but the seeds of change have been planted in your mind.

I'd also disagree with you must provide evidence. That depends on what you are arguing about. The basis of most disagreement is not about evidence based information, otherwise we'd all agree all the time. It's about values and world view, and *gasp* emotions.

A good discussion or argument results in each person getting a glimpse into the other persons POV. In order to achieve that, it needs to happen in a way that neither feels attacked, either by directly aggressive behaviour or subtle put downs. Seen both happen here. You need to explain your position fully, not with popularly used one liners. ie 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'. These 'sayings' lose their meaning with overuse.

You also need to be able to clarify and understand the other person's position. Do you really get what they are saying and why.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2012 6:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, maybe another definition of a good discussion would be the following:

A discussion which includes "active listening"... re-stating what the other person has said to confirm understanding.

Asking questions.

Stating positions and the reasons for those positions without anger or fear.

Even if agreement is not reached, both sides coming away with the idea that they have understood the other side.

?????

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2012 7:51 PM

REDREAD

The poster formerly known as yinyang.


I wasn't necessarily proposing these as the rules of RWED, but I'm glad to see some positive responses. Honestly, I think they're impossible to implement here, given the years of hostility, but I'd loved to be proven wrong. I also suspect Geezer might be right in saying the traffic would go down as a result.

Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:


If I said anything relevant, I'd be a hypocrite, sooo....

This was more my perception of the place.
Flame Warriors
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

-F



LOL. I can definitely see how we all fit into certain categories.

Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Hmmm, a very masculine definition I would say.



Interesting observation. Apparently the original source of this image is an atheism website ( http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/my-requirements-for-talking-god), and online atheism at least skews towards men.

Quote:

People don't need to stop conversations because they are not going to change their mind. You have no idea when you begin what you will think and feel in the future. It may be that you had the discussion and COMPLETELY disagreed at the time, but the seeds of change have been planted in your mind.


But I don't think you can plant those seeds in someone who is unwilling to change their mind, which is what the flowchart is getting at. The chart says that "participants are willing to alter their position if it makes sense to do so." That doesn't mean every time you have a discussion, people must change their minds.

Quote:

I'd also disagree with you must provide evidence. That depends on what you are arguing about. The basis of most disagreement is not about evidence based information, otherwise we'd all agree all the time. It's about values and world view, and *gasp* emotions.


Agreed, but again, makes sense in the context of this being about atheism/religion discussions, which frequently do revolve around evidence. And I think that values, world views, and emotions have their own evidence - maybe not all scientifically or "rationally" rigorous, but not completely irrational and subjective, either.

Quote:

A good discussion or argument results in each person getting a glimpse into the other persons POV. In order to achieve that, it needs to happen in a way that neither feels attacked, either by directly aggressive behaviour or subtle put downs. Seen both happen here. You need to explain your position fully, not with popularly used one liners. ie 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'. These 'sayings' lose their meaning with overuse.

You also need to be able to clarify and understand the other person's position. Do you really get what they are saying and why.



Great points. But if you want to go beyond just understanding someone else and into persuading them (which is a lot of what I see here in RWED), the flowchart's rules aren't a bad place to start.


||| Blog post explaining my name change: http://www.fireflyfans.net/blog.aspx?bid=9414 |||

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2012 10:13 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Hmmm, a very masculine definition I would say.

People don't need to stop conversations because they are not going to change their mind. You have no idea when you begin what you will think and feel in the future. It may be that you had the discussion and COMPLETELY disagreed at the time, but the seeds of change have been planted in your mind.

I'd also disagree with you must provide evidence. That depends on what you are arguing about. The basis of most disagreement is not about evidence based information, otherwise we'd all agree all the time. It's about values and world view, and *gasp* emotions.

A good discussion or argument results in each person getting a glimpse into the other persons POV. In order to achieve that, it needs to happen in a way that neither feels attacked, either by directly aggressive behaviour or subtle put downs. Seen both happen here. You need to explain your position fully, not with popularly used one liners. ie 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'. These 'sayings' lose their meaning with overuse.

You also need to be able to clarify and understand the other person's position. Do you really get what they are saying and why.

Hey Magons,

I love this reply. It really gets at the heart of a problem I see here. People think they know how "things work" when in reality they know how "they work." And this kind of "this is how it is" thinking is a deeply and characteristically masculine trance. And the OP's chart is ultimately self-defeating because what it's saying is that every single member of this community of firefly fans has been wasting his or her time for the past 10 years. But of course that's not true. Is it.

'Cause you named it: the point of discussion isn't to arm-wrestle someone with "the truth," it's to see into another person's thought process. To glimps who they are, what makes them tick a little. That's the gold to be taken from this mine. Not the dubious satisfaction of having proved someone WRONG ON THE INTERNET. The better goal is to broaden our understanding, not trade it for its opposite.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2012 12:35 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
LOL!

You're always good for a laugh, old man.

No wonder you took issue with Sig's suggested additions - bailing from threads is one of your favorite things to do.


"Do not introduce a new argument while another argument has yet to be resolved"

You mean, like going "But Clinton!" all the time, or any of your many, many, maaaaany stabs at absurd equivocation?

Thanks for the laugh, though.






Yup, Geezer reached troll status a long time ago for me. I pointed out that American military personnel on military bases are a valid target during wartime, at which point he screamed a few names and said he was leaving RWED. Since that time, he's been useful for nothing at all except for mocking and clowning on, so I treat him accordingly. He's never shown any interest in having an actual discussion about issues, only in trumpeting his position as the only correct choice.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2012 2:21 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

No point in discussing it with Mike and Storymark, since they've just devolved into trolls.




Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
LOL!

You're always good for a laugh, old man.

No wonder you took issue with Sig's suggested additions - bailing from threads is one of your favorite things to do.


"Do not introduce a new argument while another argument has yet to be resolved"

You mean, like going "But Clinton!" all the time, or any of your many, many, maaaaany stabs at absurd equivocation?

Thanks for the laugh, though.






Yup, Geezer reached troll status a long time ago for me. I pointed out that American military personnel on military bases are a valid target during wartime, at which point he screamed a few names and said he was leaving RWED. Since that time, he's been useful for nothing at all except for mocking and clowning on, so I treat him accordingly. He's never shown any interest in having an actual discussion about issues, only in trumpeting his position as the only correct choice.





QED

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2012 2:52 AM

WHOZIT


Liberals don't like rules unless they can change them in their favor, then they just ignore them. Plus they they don't believe in discussion, they say they do but they prefer lies and hate.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2012 3:25 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Liberals don't like rules unless they can change them in their favor, then they just ignore them. Plus they they don't believe in discussion, they say they do but they prefer lies and hate.



If you need help leaving I will help you pack!


Anyways, most of RWED would never make it past the very first square.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2012 6:55 AM

1KIKI

Today, scientists sound the alarm on other environmental dangers. Vested interests still hire their own scientists to confuse the issue. But in the end, nature will not be fooled. Neil deGrasse Tyson


"You keep saying that - yet you won't go the fuck away."

Oh good god yes. Please god, PLEASE make ZIT go away.


SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2012 7:06 AM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"You keep saying that - yet you won't go the fuck away."

Oh good god yes. Please god, PLEASE make ZIT go away.


SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.



I think if I stick around it'll really piss you libs off, I'M STAYING!!!

Cross this line --->

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2012 7:10 AM

1KIKI

Today, scientists sound the alarm on other environmental dangers. Vested interests still hire their own scientists to confuse the issue. But in the end, nature will not be fooled. Neil deGrasse Tyson


Yanno, there are people I scroll right past and NEVER reply to. Consider this your last read and your last reply.


SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2012 7:28 AM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Yanno, there are people I scroll right past and NEVER reply to. Consider this your last read and your last reply.


SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.



Would it piss you off if I said I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK!!!

If you ignore my posts than you're ignoring pure brilliance.

Now that I know you libs think I'm the scum of the earth it makes me want to stay even more, I WILL LAUGH AT YOUR PAIN!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2012 7:49 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Now that I know you libs think I'm the scum of the earth it makes me want to stay even more, I WILL LAUGH AT YOUR PAIN!!



That is an insult to scum's intelligence.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2012 8:00 AM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Now that I know you libs think I'm the scum of the earth it makes me want to stay even more, I WILL LAUGH AT YOUR PAIN!!



That is an insult to scum's intelligence.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



Hehehehehehehe

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2012 9:14 AM

STORYMARK


Does being that stupid hurt, Zit?


Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2012 9:22 AM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Does being that stupid hurt, Zit?

Yes it does, but I know I cause you more pain Hehehehehehe

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"



Yes it does, but I know that I cause you MORE pain Hehehehehehehe

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2012 4:21 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Why is anyone responding to that little amoeba floating past? It takes TWO brain cells to rub together to have any intellect, you know. And you can't communicate with amoebas.

Obviously everything that's been said has validity (with one glaring exception). I think it would be absolutely grand if that's how things worked (the chart), but it's not and never will be. I like the concept of understanding another's point of view--at which I fail all too often--and yes, that IS one thing accomplishable here. In some cases I haven't liked what I've learned, but it's been educational.

Problem for me is, I love debate and discussion for their own sakes, and that only happens here once in a blue moon because everything gets sidetracked...like this very thread...by the voices whose perspectives are pretty impossible to see, nor would I want to. Tho' there are only a few of those, they tend to become the center of conversation, sadly.

I do love the chart, however, many thanx.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 12, 2012 6:45 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Hmmm, a very masculine definition I would say.

People don't need to stop conversations because they are not going to change their mind. You have no idea when you begin what you will think and feel in the future. It may be that you had the discussion and COMPLETELY disagreed at the time, but the seeds of change have been planted in your mind.

I'd also disagree with you must provide evidence. That depends on what you are arguing about. The basis of most disagreement is not about evidence based information, otherwise we'd all agree all the time. It's about values and world view, and *gasp* emotions.

A good discussion or argument results in each person getting a glimpse into the other persons POV. In order to achieve that, it needs to happen in a way that neither feels attacked, either by directly aggressive behaviour or subtle put downs. Seen both happen here. You need to explain your position fully, not with popularly used one liners. ie 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'. These 'sayings' lose their meaning with overuse.

You also need to be able to clarify and understand the other person's position. Do you really get what they are saying and why.

Hey Magons,

I love this reply. It really gets at the heart of a problem I see here. People think they know how "things work" when in reality they know how "they work." And this kind of "this is how it is" thinking is a deeply and characteristically masculine trance. And the OP's chart is ultimately self-defeating because what it's saying is that every single member of this community of firefly fans has been wasting his or her time for the past 10 years. But of course that's not true. Is it.

'Cause you named it: the point of discussion isn't to arm-wrestle someone with "the truth," it's to see into another person's thought process. To glimps who they are, what makes them tick a little. That's the gold to be taken from this mine. Not the dubious satisfaction of having proved someone WRONG ON THE INTERNET. The better goal is to broaden our understanding, not trade it for its opposite.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.



You got it, HK. I started to change my views on arguments when I first read De Bono, who questioned the classical ideas which frame how we debate, argue, and ultimate rule. The classical method is what is described at the start of this this thread, the premise of this thread. And obviously, this model is preferable to the denigration, name calling, strawman arguments that are so predominant in political discourse in this day and age.

The best debate I ever read about/saw snippets of, was on abortion here in my state. For once, it was not done on party lines, and it was also not about evidence but people ie parliamentarians described their personal values and or experiences. It made me think how good it would be if every debate was like this one in governemnt.

What undermined the whole issue was the response of some of the public...death threats to one member who described her own abortion experience, but the debate itself was really terrific.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 12, 2012 7:32 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I'm not interested in any official rules.

I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:07 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by REDREAD:
Found this while cleaning up my hard drive and thought of RWED.



This is classic RR!

You should change the title of the thread to "Why Nearly Every Single Poster in the RWED is Wasting Everyone's Time, Including Their Own!" OR "Opinions are Like Assholes......."

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Sydney Siege
Sat, December 20, 2014 06:01 - 52 posts
McCulloch Responds to Criticism
Sat, December 20, 2014 04:17 - 7 posts
Obama administration accused of political motives in push for new citizens
Sat, December 20, 2014 00:45 - 1 posts
We tortured some folks
Sat, December 20, 2014 00:05 - 119 posts
Pakistan School Massacre
Fri, December 19, 2014 23:49 - 25 posts
WHY AIN'T THIS FRONT PAGE NEWS???
Fri, December 19, 2014 21:45 - 6 posts
How psychopaths control society, and why we don't do anything about it
Fri, December 19, 2014 20:17 - 44 posts
The ruble nosedives
Fri, December 19, 2014 19:20 - 11 posts
Blast from the past: speculation from 2008
Fri, December 19, 2014 01:51 - 1 posts
Tooday's Collegium Gradutates
Thu, December 18, 2014 21:08 - 34 posts
ICYMI - Mars 'may' actually have life !
Thu, December 18, 2014 21:04 - 3 posts
Another White cop / black citizen incident caught on video
Thu, December 18, 2014 20:27 - 16 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS