******Official politics thread ******

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I just may disagree on points and not want to hash it over again and again, then the reading gets long and eyelids get heavy, melons sometimes will. Yeah I introduce tangents, I hit topics on every side conceivable, sometimes even inconceivable, but with the topic still in focus if seemingly only in the rear view mirror. Imagine chess with words. But it doesn't translate very well to written form, except for the hardcore reader that doesn't complain after two or three paragraphs condensed. Salute!

That's not it. I know this forum (like most forums online) are a sesspool of hatred but I'm not trying to be insulting for the sake of it. This is a legitimate attempt at constructive criticism in order to aid a good discussion.

I think you're sometimes quite poor in discussions. I understand that certain topics are complex and contain so many facets your mind starts jumping from point to point. You delve into one aspect but can't finish it right away because you need to highlight one specific aspect of that point and go off into something else but you can't finish that point right away because you need to highlight one specific aspect of that point and it continues on and on. If you talk long enough eventually you'll be able to finish every point though.

Being able to translate that well is an artform. And I don't just mean from spoken words to written words, I mean from your mind to spoken words. Not many people are good at it. Most people are bad at it. Inattention and laziness of the reader definitely plays a roll and you'll never get certain people to read what you're saying once it exceeds two paragraphs. But seeing as how those people won't read it regardless of the quality of what you're saying/writing you need to write for those that will read it. And once you enter that field, it's entirely on you to translate it well.

I also tend to write long posts. You can't condense complex issues into two or three paragraphs without being superficial and vague. What I've just said a lot of people would condense to two or three sentences. They wouldn't bother with a lot of what I said. So I get it.

But there's a difference between delving into subjects and being off-topic. There's a difference between expanding the discussion and ignoring what has been said in order to hold a monologue about things that have been on your mind that are distantly related to the topic (or hold the topic in the rear view mirror as you put it). There is no genuine back and forth and you fail to go into details on where you disagree. Your actual counter-arguments are quite short and inconcise while the other (off-topic) points you introduce are quite lengthy. It should at the very least be the other way around or everything should be lengthy and concise.

You're also unnecessarily irate and seemingly suspicious of peoples' motivations. It really doesn't make for good conservation. I agree with rebeccablack's observation that you probably feel like you win every argument. It's regretful that that sometimes seems to be your goal. In a good argument both parties win. Rational discussions are fun to have. You can gain knowledge (even if it's just a view into another person's mind and/or train of thought) and insight. You should aim to 'win' the argument but only in the sense that you're trying to prove your point as well as you can. Getting to the truth and having a good discussion is the real goal. Losing in a rational discussion is always better than winning in a verbal shit-throwing contest.

Like I said, you're a smart and knowledgeable guy but you're doing a lot of things wrong. If you'd correct those (and I think learn more about human psychology away from political issues because the two tend to clouded) you could communicate your thoughts and points significantly better and would give people more reason to actually listen to you. I also think you'd get a lot more out of it because it must be frustrating to be knowledgeable and have an intelligent and inquisitive mind but not have any real peers (I'm only speaking in terms of what I see on this forum. I'm not pretending to know anything about you in real life). Even if you're 100% right you can still fail to provide proper arguments and hold a good discussion. Good discussions are good.

(See... long posts [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] )

[Pokesan]

whatchu think about the rookies gordo?

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by rebeccablack [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you're actually kind of bad at reading other peoples' posts and responding to their actual points. instead you just kind of insert whatever non sequitur gets you to the point you'd like to make, which makes having a discussion with you pretty difficult since you don't actually respond to people. i'm sure it feels to you like you win every argument though.

No I just disagree with what he said, and already answered it in that way, so what is the point in saying it again to what he's already said before? He just doesn't like me calling atheism a religion or a different view of atheism than he has. So how long do we sit doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? You want links or something? Plenty of pages that detail it out easily found with google, some points I have already shared here (as I just now read these), and while trying to keep it somewhat in the political/geopolitical realm as is the thread topic.

Differrent views:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/1...-is-a-religion
http://strangenotions.com/is-atheism-a-religion/
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion

But yeah, I don't simply define atheism by the name, but the action. Not of all, but by it's core membership. Just like progressive-liberalism, plenty of useful idiots just there for their important use, keeping the faith alive by power of the vote/s etc.


edit: lol now I get walls of text on how to write. It will never be acceptable until I accept your view. If you know it's a cesspool, and want to be different, then why write in cesspool terms? I write fine. ...be it condensed, but legible. Attack the post, not the poster, be less cesspooly like then [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't expect to change your mind here an now, not how males function. Males are slow to change, which is a strength of the gender.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I do think belief is necessarily impulsive.
I like to differentiate between my thoughts and my opinions. Thoughts are an automatic process but I'll only call something my opinion once I think that I have enough information, thought it through properly and have a high degree of certainty. This distinction is arbitrary though. If you don't know you refrain from making claims of certainty.

So between your thoughts and opinions, which do you consider beliefs? I'd consider them all beliefs. they are conclusions that you have drawn and now hold some confidence in.

What would be the logic behind saying "I don't know whether or not I believe that I have a bag of Cheetos"?

i am not sure I understand what you are asking, but if you are asking what the structure of the argument is, that is the whole point :3 it is not an argument. it is the act of declining to make an argument on the subject. you're not drawing any conclusions about your belief with regard to possessing a bag of Cheetos.

I do have to say that one issue here is that semantics is very important here.

I agree with this very much.

Q: "Do you have a bag of Cheetos?"
A: "I believe so".

That answer means "I think I do". The word believe is used in a bunch of different ways and it can be confusing.

agreed.

In regards to your first two sentences: I agree entirely. I think that ties in with belief being impulsive.

In regards to disbelief equaling a lack of belief, I disagree entirely. And that's the key point.

yes, this is a key difference.

I posted this before:

A person tells a story to three people.

Person one thinks the story is true.
Person two thinks the story is a lie.
Person three doesn't quite know.

Does person one (who thinks it's true) believe the story? Yes.
Does person one disbelieve the story? No.

Does person two (who thinks it's a lie) believe the story? No.
Does person two disbelieve the story? Yes.

Does person three (who doesn't quite know) disbelieve the story? No.
Does person three believe the story? No.


That is the distinction between lack of belief and disbelief.

this is why I adressed professed disbelief in my original post. there is a fundamental difference between saying, "I do not believe x," or "I do not hold belief in x" and "I don't know." resolving that you have no belief that a thing exists implicitly rejects competing alternatives. to be able to say, "I do not hold belief in x," you have reasoned that it does not exist.

Lets just take the common usage of the word agnostic and speak on a person who hasn't been convinced of the existence of a god/gods. Does this person believe in any gods? Does this person hold a belief in a god/gods? The answer is no.
A person who doesn't believe/hold a belief in a god/gods is an atheist. An agnostic in the common usage of the word is actually an atheist. But common usage doesn't really mean much in terms of truth. "I could care less" is incorrect, no matter how much it is used.
'Atheist', 'theist' and 'agnostic' are all misapplied.

Wikipedia isn't exactly a source but in this case it can be helpful since we're talking about the usage of a word. A dictionary isn't an authority source on proper definitions either but both a dictionary and in this case Wikipedia do provide information on usage.

Wikipedia: "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"

all good stuff.

You're right that it doesn't necessarily follow but I wasn't implying that it did. I only spoke on the Abrahamic god (for reasons I think are obvious) but I haven't been convinced by any.
Christians reject all other gods except for one. So you're right that their disbelief/lack of believe doesn't mean they don't hold belief in any gods.

I don't really see your point here though.

you did imply it in the structure of your argument: "I do not believe x, therefore I am y." i only pointed it out to illustrate the simplicity of the concept were discussing and how often loose logic results in faulty reasoning. the "lack of belief" argument is similar because it relies on a non-binary nature of existence. one cannot believe while not believing. restructuring the argument around belief vs lack of belief does nothing be detract from what the argument is:

i do not have confidence in the truthfulness of the existence of a divine being.

you cannot rationally hold that belief alongside:

i do not not have confidence in the truthfulness of the existence of a divine being.

There seems to be some implication of belief limbo but that would be contradictory with what you said earlier ("there is a belief or there is not. you believe or you do not"). But I don't think that's your point. Maybe this is something that we agree on. That's logic 101.

yes, once you have decided, which is what you must do to adopt a belief, you either believe or you do not.

What decision was made?

the decision to believe or not believe. but then, you indicated above that you believe decision making to be impulsive in some ways, but calculated in others. i am not sure I fully understand, but that is why I asked for clarification above :3

I don't think decision is the right word here though. Wouldn't 'making a truth claim' be more appropriate?

I have to look back at what I originally said, but I am presently not so concerned with truth claims as I am with reason.

This is why the term 'positive atheist' exists. A positive atheist is someone who doesn't hold a belief in any gods [belief] and claims that there are no gods (knowledge). This is a positive assertion and requires evidence. That is a decision/truth claim.

To go back to my comment about babies and atheism. The terms 'atheist' and 'theist' can't exist without the other. So if a person can't be a 'theist' applying the term 'atheist' is inappropriate.
Lets use a term that used to be quite popular (I'm reading "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas" now and it's ripe with the word) 'savage'. Imagine there was a group of savages that never had any contact with the outside world. They don't have gods in their culture and no concept of such a being. Therefore they don't hold any beliefs in gods. If they don't even have a concept of god they can't logically reject it. Yet they still lack a belief in any gods. This is what being an atheist boils down to.

but atheists do have a concept of gods, which they must necessarily reject if they are to process a disbelief thereof.

suppose you and I are three years old. i have not learned the names of any colors. you on the other hand have already learned to recognize the color red. while stuffing objects of various colors into my mouth, i hold no belief as to whether or not they are red. you on the other hand recognize that some of the objects look different. you do not know what they are, but you do not believe they are red. you reject the idea that they may be red in doing so.

[Pokesan]

muh russia

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

muh russia

Damn. Nixon's rolling in his grave.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

muh russia

So he talked to them about muslims using laptops on airplanes to disrupt operations of the aircraft or some such? This is a security risk to tell a Russian ambassador?? ... was the Russian ambassador an islamisist? What, you think the Russians are stupid and don't know this already? You think the islamisists don't know about it which discovered it? Who claims it was such classified information? Top people, TOP?!

And we are really dumb of course, can't figure out why airlines are not letting laptops on-board all of the sudden now.

Man, look at all them stones flipping over, for anything! anything at all! no matter the absurdity. Obstructionism must continue to commence!

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's not it. I know this forum (like most forums online) are a sesspool of hatred but I'm not trying to be insulting for the sake of it. This is a legitimate attempt at constructive criticism in order to aid a good discussion.

I think you're sometimes quite poor in discussions. I understand that certain topics are complex and contain so many facets your mind starts jumping from point to point. You delve into one aspect but can't finish it right away because you need to highlight one specific aspect of that point and go off into something else but you can't finish that point right away because you need to highlight one specific aspect of that point and it continues on and on. If you talk long enough eventually you'll be able to finish every point though.

Being able to translate that well is an artform. And I don't just mean from spoken words to written words, I mean from your mind to spoken words. Not many people are good at it. Most people are bad at it. Inattention and laziness of the reader definitely plays a roll and you'll never get certain people to read what you're saying once it exceeds two paragraphs. But seeing as how those people won't read it regardless of the quality of what you're saying/writing you need to write for those that will read it. And once you enter that field, it's entirely on you to translate it well.

I also tend to write long posts. You can't condense complex issues into two or three paragraphs without being superficial and vague. What I've just said a lot of people would condense to two or three sentences. They wouldn't bother with a lot of what I said. So I get it.

But there's a difference between delving into subjects and being off-topic. There's a difference between expanding the discussion and ignoring what has been said in order to hold a monologue about things that have been on your mind that are distantly related to the topic (or hold the topic in the rear view mirror as you put it). There is no genuine back and forth and you fail to go into details on where you disagree. Your actual counter-arguments are quite short and inconcise while the other (off-topic) points you introduce are quite lengthy. It should at the very least be the other way around or everything should be lengthy and concise.

You're also unnecessarily irate and seemingly suspicious of peoples' motivations. It really doesn't make for good conservation. I agree with rebeccablack's observation that you probably feel like you win every argument. It's regretful that that sometimes seems to be your goal. In a good argument both parties win. Rational discussions are fun to have. You can gain knowledge (even if it's just a view into another person's mind and/or train of thought) and insight. You should aim to 'win' the argument but only in the sense that you're trying to prove your point as well as you can. Getting to the truth and having a good discussion is the real goal. Losing in a rational discussion is always better than winning in a verbal shit-throwing contest.

Like I said, you're a smart and knowledgeable guy but you're doing a lot of things wrong. If you'd correct those (and I think learn more about human psychology away from political issues because the two tend to clouded) you could communicate your thoughts and points significantly better and would give people more reason to actually listen to you. I also think you'd get a lot more out of it because it must be frustrating to be knowledgeable and have an intelligent and inquisitive mind but not have any real peers (I'm only speaking in terms of what I see on this forum. I'm not pretending to know anything about you in real life). Even if you're 100% right you can still fail to provide proper arguments and hold a good discussion. Good discussions are good.

(See... long posts [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] )

Fippy won't concede to rationale that they don't believe is manifested internally. Giving Fippy any advice on presentation is taken as a personal attack by Fippy because Fippy is proly an undiagnosed narcissist as well as being politically cucked. Fippy is all bark and likely just a sycophant of alt-thought (no other way to label it came to mind). I suggest openly laughing at Fippy because it's sad otherwise.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So he talked to them about muslims using laptops on airplanes to disrupt operations of the aircraft or some such? This is a security risk to tell a Russian ambassador?? ... was the Russian ambassador an islamisist? What, you think the Russians are stupid and don't know this already? You think the islamisists don't know about it which discovered it? Who claims it was such classified information? Top people, TOP?!

And we are really dumb of course, can't figure out why airlines are not letting laptops on-board all of the sudden now.

Man, look at all them stones flipping over, for anything! anything at all! no matter the absurdity. Obstructionism must continue to commence!

lock him up https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...8675186147328?

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So he talked to them about muslims using laptops on airplanes to disrupt operations of the aircraft or some such? This is a security risk to tell a Russian ambassador?? ... was the Russian ambassador an islamisist? What, you think the Russians are stupid and don't know this already? You think the islamisists don't know about it which discovered it? Who claims it was such classified information? Top people, TOP?!

And we are really dumb of course, can't figure out why airlines are not letting laptops on-board all of the sudden now.

Man, look at all them stones flipping over, for anything! anything at all! no matter the absurdity. Obstructionism must continue to commence!

Lol, just lol. Lololllolololololololololololollololololololololol olololololololololololololoololololololololll

It's funny how you think that potential treason is no big deal.

Lololololololololooololllolollolool