What have we learned today?

[Nanami Touko]

no I think Revan is completely right in his use of insults

because people this ignorant do not deserve civility :E

besides, this is FFtF, if you read his post in Serious Discussion, he's quite reserved

Edited January 26, 2013 by seph1212

[Makaze]

no I think Revan is completely right in his use of insults

because people this ignorant do not deserve civility :E

besides, this is FFtF, if you read his post in Serious Discussion, he's quite reserved

I think that you should only do things that help you get what you want. Go straight for the throat.

I'm a stickler for efficiency, though. Who am I to knock on someone arguing for their own satisfaction?

Edited January 26, 2013 by Makaze

[Defeatist Elitist]

DE, you are only making yourself look bad.

If you cannot discuss the subject without getting riled, you probably shouldn't discuss it.

Your swearing and insults will only help him justify his victim complex.

I'm not even remotely riled duder, it's just that there's no fucking way I'm going to convince him he's wrong, so the best I can do is make him afraid to vomit his dumb fucking opinions all over the place. Also, I don't think there's anybody on this site that has any respect for me that would lose it because I said mean words to some random creationist. Being a dick is like my thing, yo.

[Makaze]

I'm not even remotely riled duder, it's just that there's no fucking way I'm going to convince him he's wrong, so the best I can do is make him afraid to vomit his dumb fucking opinions all over the place. Also, I don't think there's anybody on this site that has any respect for me that would lose it because I said mean words to some random creationist. Being a dick is like my thing, yo.

It's not you I'm worried about, that was a bad way to put it. You make the rest of us look bad. Your attitude is pretty much explicitly 'bully him into shutting up'.

You're the type of person who gives him a reason to say, 'My religious views are persecuted!'

You might not give a shit, but it makes it a lot harder for other people to be rational with him because he will always think back to the times you bullied him and dismiss us as if we are doing the same thing as you.

Don't create a hopeless situation for everyone because you see one yourself.

[Nanami Touko]

> being rational with creationists

okay

[peener weener]

It's not you I'm worried about, that was a bad way to put it. You make the rest of us look bad. Your attitude is pretty much explicitly 'bully him into shutting up'.

You're the type of person who gives him a reason to say, 'My religious views are persecuted!'

You might not give a shit, but it makes it a lot harder for other people to be rational with him because he will always think back to the times you bullied him and dismiss us as if we are doing the same thing as you.

Don't create a hopeless situation for everyone because you see one yourself.

assuming lots of shit right there broski

[Makaze]

> being rational with creationists

okay

I've had a lot of practice. If you can avoid putting them on the defensive then you can at least get them to relax their gnosticism.

assuming lots of shit right there broski

Speaking for others? That I did. Sorry, that was bad.

If you meant about him: The only thing I said about him was that his attitude led him to bullying people into shutting up. Based on: "the best I can do is make him afraid to vomit his dumb fucking opinions all over the place."

[Defeatist Elitist]

I've had a lot of practice. If you can avoid putting them on the defensive then you can at least get them to relax their gnosticism.

So have I. But the ones it works on, it will still work on by doing that. There are fucking people on this site who were once creationists who aren't because other people here convinced them otherwise, and none of us were nice about it.

If you meant about him: The only thing I said about him was that his attitude led him to bullying people into shutting up. Based on: "the best I can do is make him afraid to vomit his dumb fucking opinions all over the place."

Call it bullying if you'd like, but I think it should be socially unacceptable to say shit like that, and I'm doing what I can to foster that kind of atmosphere. If you treat him nicely and as if his opinions have merit, he'll say a bunch of disingenuous shit, and you make what he's saying seem reasonable.

He is literally denying one of the most basic, well accepted and central biological facts. Modern biology makes no sense without evolution. He cannot possibly have actually looked at any of the science and still hold the opinion he has. If he's going to spout off a bunch of shit about something he doesn't understand and hasn't even put in any effort to understand, at best he's being a willfully ignorant anti-intellectual, an at worst he's a straight up liar. Fuck him man, he doesn't deserve your suppport.

[Defeatist Elitist]

also, fuck the police

[Makaze]

I'm not proposing being nice, either. I just do things differently. Goodness knows I didn't respond to brute force and insults, and still don't.

also, fuck the police

Edited January 26, 2013 by Makaze

[Lauren]

I learned that the lady I do graphic design / work for also hates small talk :D (in business settings).

edit: Uh oh, I think I came in at a bad time. I see it has been a little scary in here. Hm, let's all just think about FIre Emblem and feel happy

Edited January 26, 2013 by Lauren

[Makaze]

I learned that the lady I do graphic design / work for also hates small talk :D (in business settings).

edit: Uh oh, I think I came in at a bad time. I see it has been a little scary in here. Hm, let's all just think about FIre Emblem and feel happy

Blah blah Knight to G-4 blah blah.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Makaze

[Prims]

i learned you can't have a "what did you learn today" thread without people turning it into a creationism debate that could easily be taken elsewhere

but i actually unironically learned a lot from doga's :goodposting: :> evolution's some fascinating shit

Edited January 26, 2013 by Prims

[Esau of Isaac]

So have I. But the ones it works on, it will still work on by doing that. There are fucking people on this site who were once creationists who aren't because other people here convinced them otherwise, and none of us were nice about it.

This is generally true, as far as I've seen. There are many ways to get someone to give up an argument or change their opinion. I guess it's possible there's someone out there that's a young Earth creationist who, when presented with the facts, would say "Oh, I see. It appears I am incorrect." The majority of them, however, have had their beliefs hammered into their heads by the community since they were young. They don't know about the scientific workings and they're not interested in doing so, they're simply sure that it must be false because it disagrees with something that is a constant in their life.

Shame is a very powerful tool. People don't change most readily when they're happy, they do so when they are distressed.In that sense derision of plainly ignorant beliefs can be a good means by which to eventually change someone's mind. They certainly won't publicly acknowledge it, but then they probably wouldn't if the person were polite anyways.

[Makaze]

This is generally true, as far as I've seen. There are many ways to get someone to give up an argument or change their opinion. I guess it's possible there's someone out there that's a young Earth creationist who, when presented with the facts, would say "Oh, I see. It appears I am incorrect." The majority of them, however, have had their beliefs hammered into their heads by the community since they were young. They don't know about the scientific workings and they're not interested in doing so, they're simply sure that it must be false because it disagrees with something that is a constant in their life.

Shame is a very powerful tool. People don't change most readily when they're happy, they do so when they are distressed.In that sense derision of plainly ignorant beliefs can be a good means by which to eventually change someone's mind. They certainly won't publicly acknowledge it, but then they probably wouldn't if the person were polite anyways.

I understand that it works (sometimes), but I'm concerned about why it works. Appealing to shame may ensure that they will change their mind, but it doesn't mean they will become more rational—they may latch onto something else and consider that their constant. (Often evolution or strictly anti-religious sentiments.) I don't want people to choose what I think is right because I think it is right, I want them to give up on loyalty to ideas entirely and judge things for themselves. Even if they do not agree with my conclusions, I want their objections to be of their own making. Appeals to shame are appeals to society—he should change because others say so. That isn't good enough for me. He needs to change for himself, not to please others.

When someone comes to a good conclusion through irrational means it devalues the rationality of the conclusions themselves. If the conclusion isn't a result of their own thoughts, then I don't see the point in coming to it at all. I don't want to change the doctrine that sheep believe, I want them to stop being sheep altogether.

I cannot help but wonder—if I appeal to shame, how am I different from the parents that raised him in it? How good are my ideas if I have to resort to the same tactics?

Edited January 26, 2013 by Makaze

[Prims]

Eh, "shaming" here is basically par for the course because fireemblemfan4ever was doing the same thing from the other side at first. That said, Defeatist Elitist's post is still unhelpful because it's "you're dumb and wrong and I'm right" without going in-depth or linking to sources, which doesn't actually encourage anybody to learn anything (and directly goes against the point of the thread, even!). If Defeatist Elitist was seriously trying to convince anybody instead of just telling fe4fe4fe4ffdff off then that's a horrible way to do it because it basically promotes the belief of "evolution is right because it is" which isn't any better than "creationism is right because it is", especially when evolution can be explained. It's not impossible to be an ass and be helpful at the same time. Still better than le edgy /r/atheism circlejerk xD posts like seph1212's at least.

[peener weener]

le meme

[Percivalé]

today I learned about this fucking amazing website and some of you guys sound like you could use some chill music

[Makaze]

today I learned about this fucking amazing website and some of you guys sound like you could use some chill music

I think I am going to like this.

[Esme]

today I learned about this fucking amazing website and some of you guys sound like you could use some chill music

I feel butthurt.

"No mood found. Try another one."

:<

Edited January 27, 2013 by Esme

[Esau of Isaac]

I understand that it works (sometimes), but I'm concerned about why it works. Appealing to shame may ensure that they will change their mind, but it doesn't mean they will become more rational—they may latch onto something else and consider that their constant. (Often evolution or strictly anti-religious sentiments.) I don't want people to choose what I think is right because I think it is right, I want them to give up on loyalty to ideas entirely and judge things for themselves. Even if they do not agree with my conclusions, I want their objections to be of their own making. Appeals to shame are appeals to society—he should change because others say so. That isn't good enough for me. He needs to change for himself, not to please others.

When someone comes to a good conclusion through irrational means it devalues the rationality of the conclusions themselves. If the conclusion isn't a result of their own thoughts, then I don't see the point in coming to it at all. I don't want to change the doctrine that sheep believe, I want them to stop being sheep altogether.

I cannot help but wonder—if I appeal to shame, how am I different from the parents that raised him in it? How good are my ideas if I have to resort to the same tactics?

People use the tactic because it works. In my eyes what matters is what is arrived at, moreso than the journey to get there. You can't avoid controlling how people behave. You can refrain from using "dirty" tactics, but they're realistically no less valid than any methodology you might use to appeal to some other baser instinct someone has.

As an example, do you ever talk to someone while maintaining good eye contact? Smile at appropriate points? Give approachable, warm body language? Some people do it naturally, others do it calculatingly. Either way, they're both tactics used to get people to like you.

today I learned about this fucking amazing website and some of you guys sound like you could use some chill music

I've wanted something like this forever. Thankyouthankyouthankyou

Edited January 27, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Zanarkin]

I learned that i don't know things as well as i thought i did and that i need to study a lot, work like theres no tomorrow on my assignments

[Makaze]

People use the tactic because it works. In my eyes what matters is what is arrived at, moreso than the journey to get there. You can't avoid controlling how people behave. You can refrain from using "dirty" tactics, but they're realistically no less valid than any methodology you might use to appeal to some other baser instinct someone has.

How can you validate your own position without proving it? If what you say is true, then fireemblemfan4ever's result is just as valid as yours and mine. If the way you get where you are not does matter, then any conclusion is just as valid as another. There is no inherently better conclusion. You were just arguing for the scientific method in the discussion thread, so I assume you understand where I am coming from.

Science is not a collection of assertions and conclusions; it is the method that caused people to arrive at them. If you take away the method, then it does become like a religion. Remember the harsh persecution and bullying that Galileo faced when he said that the sun was at the center of the solar system? The method he used to arrive at his conclusion was paramount. Without his method, the conclusion would be worthless, and the bullies would be justified in persecuting him. If he had succumbed to the bullying of the so-called intellectuals and scientists of his day, we could be using hundreds of formulas to explain why everything is so convoluted in relation to the earth. History has shown that it was in the best interests of both the bullies and Galileo to consider the method rather than to stick with their previously accumulated knowledge.

It is extremely important to carefully consider every claim and refute it logically, for one's own sake as well for the sake of the one who makes it. You, as the bully, could be wrong. Despite how much sense your worldview makes to you, the method could still prove you wrong given more evidence. You need to address that consideration just as much as you address your anger at the other person's incompetence. That devil's advocacy is what makes you more rational than those with faith.

Disregarding the value of the method is not far from self-righteousness, and from there faith in a particular model. It only takes one step away from the method to become the type of person who tells others that they are wrong with no basis other what they have already learned. When you start appealing to knowledge (conclusion) instead of reason (method), you are already on the same level as a religious zealot.

I want to avoid that level of arrogance at all costs. I will never be so sure that I am right that convincing others justifies intellectually dishonest practices.

[Makaze]

I learned that i don't know things as well as i thought i did and that i need to study a lot, work like theres no tomorrow on my assignments

Isn't that the way of things...

[Zanarkin]

Isn't that the way of things...

Yes except i procrastinate too much >.<