First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
The Dual Paradox of Assumption
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/11/10 , edited 4/11/10

Trunks19 wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:



Are you avoiding your responsibility as the person who started this topic by not giving me any practical answers to my question? I don't understand what the hell are you trying to say that's why I'm asking questions.It's like you are a teacher and I am a student but you do not actually answer my question. Fine. If you are not willing to answer my questions then I won't reply here again.
It's therefore not my responsibility to do your own research or rationalizing for you, when I'm neither your mentor, instructor, teacher, nor yourself. While all research materials were already made available for review.

Furthermore, if you pester me again with that same attitude of yours, I'll consider your action as trolling and respond accordingly. Consider this is your only warning.


DomFortress do not forget she/he is part of the "I am entitled generation." You know the new 12 to 22 years old's who think they should get everything handed to them, without them needing to do shit for them selves.


How did you come up with that stupid conclusion? If someone starts a thread and it is confusing how is it wrong to clarify what you are saying? Especially when you are speaking in a way that doesnt make sense. If the world was as dumb as you and attack anyone who has a question then how would we learn anything? You have a question about Religion and when you ask it I just name call you does that help you understand anything? A child asks a teacher a question in school and the teacher calls him names and tells him to research it himself does that help you understand anything? So no you need to pull your head out your ass.


"As a teacher Yes I would teach the kid how to gather the information for them selves.. Then force them to do just that gather the information for them selves.. Its called giving the students a structure to build onto. But I would like to see those children exercise their own minds some instead of thinking they need someone holding their hand all the time." I don't think of it as being a asshole.. I think of it as being supportive in the right way that is needed in-order to benefit the child's growth."

SO in your own words pull your head out of your ass and learn to investigate the matter for one self, If you do not agree with it, its still your duty to gather the information. How else will you come to your own conclusion that is not just doctored by someone else.
Posted 4/11/10 , edited 4/11/10

Yei wrote:


Glock45 wrote:

Such a jolly thread we have going here. It's like crows picking at a carcass of half-witted and childish yammering. What was supposed to be a friendly debate has reduced to a puddle of atrophied ooze.

I think that one thing can be assumed from all of this, maybe even as a "dual paradox", people love to mess with each other while having themselves messed with and dislike being proven wrong for their own sake. If DomFortress was really some pathetic and arrogant person merely posting here as some lame substitute for having no real world accomplishments, would he have helped anyone by essentially slapping them upside the head and showing them why they were wrong? DarkPhoenix3450 has his own way of digging around to find another person's individual traits. Even the way he writes is a sort of baited trap.

When we assume that another person is of a much lower station than ourselves, we come to find out quite the contrary. Some folks just love to do things for the thrill. You can come here and post completely inane bullshit and find whether or not people can even deduce that it is, which is a great way to discover some truly intelligent individuals.


Someone else had this theory, I forget who, that Dom's bullshit and general bizarreness was his way of helping people. So he would post something ridiculous and by having to respond to the bizarre post, a person learns how to deal with nonsense or be a better debater in general.

Now that would be really odd for a 32 year old guy to be doing online, all the time. Because it wastes people time more than it helps them.


All of us could be more constructive, definitely. If anything is of use here, it is a fun and even addictive means to exercise the mind through debates. They can go absolutely nowhere, but still yield a bit of nutritive fruit. I mean, a dual paradox seems to be totally impossible. It's like having a concept that is impossible to conclude twice over. It gets people going to an unnecessary level and proves perhaps how bored we poor souls are.
52 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/11/10

DomFortress wrote:


Trunks19 wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



DomFortress do not forget she/he is part of the "I am entitled generation." You know the new 12 to 22 years old's who think they should get everything handed to them, without them needing to do shit for them selves.


How did you come up with that stupid conclusion? If someone starts a thread and it is confusing how is it wrong to clarify what you are saying? Especially when you are speaking in a way that doesnt make sense. If the world was as dumb as you and attack anyone who has a question then how would we learn anything? You have a question about Religion and when you ask it I just name call you does that help you understand anything? A child asks a teacher a question in school and the teacher calls him names and tells him to research it himself does that help you understand anything? So no you need to pull your head out your ass.

That's not how your original stance was when you first barged in not with a acquisitive mindset, but one of authoritative figure without any proof; the definition of entitlement.

Furthermore, insofar you've avoided my challenge to you, while you just gone and picked on someone else instead. Therefore before I consider you as an internet bully, I'll have you know that I for one who doesn't take bullying on my thread kindly. This is still my topic with research materials I've since gathered and used as my evidence in support of my claims. Therefore it's your responsibility to stay on topic with my claims, instead of you disturbing my flow by you harassing others on my thread.


Hey whats there to say I am doing what you like. You should be happy that you get have small arguments and flames this is what you do all the time. Everyone who conversates with you who has just a slight difference of opinion in your book is considered dumb right. So thus you called them dumb and now your whole debate turned into an argument. This is your world I am acting the way you would want me to. There is no need for me to have some kind of mature discussion with you because it never will happen even if I politely ask you to.
Moon Princess Moderator
283374 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Heaven
Offline
Posted 4/11/10
Cr users, can we please keep this in a NO ARGUING ZONE!!!!

If i find any more trolls, rants or flames, this Thread will be locked!

Posted 4/11/10

Serenity_07 wrote:

Cr users, can we please keep this in a NO ARGUING ZONE!!!!

If i find any more trolls, rants or flames, this Thread will be locked!



I think the flaming and such will just escalate here. Not that I am suggesting that this thread should be locked, or anything.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/11/10

Glock45 wrote:


Serenity_07 wrote:

Cr users, can we please keep this in a NO ARGUING ZONE!!!!

If i find any more trolls, rants or flames, this Thread will be locked!



I think the flaming and such will just escalate here. Not that I am suggesting that this thread should be locked, or anything.


Yes their is a good chance of that.. but then flaming sometimes a needed in-order to move the debate and subject along. Not that I am condoning trolls. But one does need apposing sides to be considered as a debate.
Posted 4/11/10 , edited 4/11/10

Serenity_07 wrote:

Cr users, can we please keep this in a NO ARGUING ZONE!!!!

If i find any more trolls, rants or flames, this Thread will be locked!

As the original topic starter, I request that my thread to remain open. When the nature of this thread isn't offending any individual in particular, because I only presented a fact about assuming both too much or too little can be counterproductive on people's decision making process.

In return, I'll refrain from responding to trolls. When all they want is to lock my thread and thereby infringe my freedom with their actions.
Posted 4/11/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Glock45 wrote:


Serenity_07 wrote:

Cr users, can we please keep this in a NO ARGUING ZONE!!!!

If i find any more trolls, rants or flames, this Thread will be locked!



I think the flaming and such will just escalate here. Not that I am suggesting that this thread should be locked, or anything.


Yes their is a good chance of that.. but then flaming sometimes a needed in-order to move the debate and subject along. Not that I am condoning trolls. But one does need apposing sides to be considered as a debate.


Even if the opposite side is completely insane. We (superior) teach the opposition (clowns) a few things and often come to find that "the dual paradox of assumptions" is ultimately true, since we can't unscrew the lid off a person's head and dump out their intellectual contents.
52 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/11/10
Leave his thread open I dont wish it to be closed. My thing is for threads to be popular people should be allowed to question or give a different side of the OP's opinion. I just found it odd that when one truly is trying to understand the thread so one can be engaged in it is attacked for being stupid and not doing their research. I believe someone can simply things without the person to spend hours to do research in order to participate. So with that said leave this thread open.
Posted 4/11/10 , edited 4/11/10

Trunks19 wrote:

Leave his thread open I dont wish it to be closed. My thing is for threads to be popular people should be allowed to question or give a different side of the OP's opinion. I just found it odd that when one truly is trying to understand the thread so one can be engaged in it is attacked for being stupid and not doing their research. I believe someone can simply things without the person to spend hours to do research in order to participate. So with that said leave this thread open.
Then my question to you is how can you truly teach someone of this mentality? Especially when the instruction was already in plain sight:


Not to mention is the fact that personally I didn't address any CR user with a negative annotation about their individual intellects in the first place.
52 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/11/10

DomFortress wrote:


Trunks19 wrote:

Leave his thread open I dont wish it to be closed. My thing is for threads to be popular people should be allowed to question or give a different side of the OP's opinion. I just found it odd that when one truly is trying to understand the thread so one can be engaged in it is attacked for being stupid and not doing their research. I believe someone can simply things without the person to spend hours to do research in order to participate. So with that said leave this thread open.
Then my question to you is how can you truly teach someone of this mentality? Especially when the instruction was already in plain sight:


Not to mention is the fact that personally I didn't address any CR user with a negative annotation about their individual intellects in the first place.


Dom lets try to be decent so the mods wont lock this thread or even ban us. The way you write Dom I dont know if you noticed it but it is kind of hard to understand and to me it looks like it is over simplified. So far two users came to this thread not having a clue what you are talking about and what you were getting at. One user you claimed to be acting foolish and needs to do their own research when he stated he wasn't trying not to argue with you at all but just get a simple answer out of you.

My suggestion is to write in a way in which many others can understand so we can be engaged in your topics. If not at least answer a simple question without making one feel like they are less intelligent then you are. Nobody is perfect, and many things we read and see we have questions for them thus we ask to find the answers. I dont want to dwell on this to much longer because it is off topic.
Posted 4/11/10

Trunks19 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Trunks19 wrote:

Leave his thread open I dont wish it to be closed. My thing is for threads to be popular people should be allowed to question or give a different side of the OP's opinion. I just found it odd that when one truly is trying to understand the thread so one can be engaged in it is attacked for being stupid and not doing their research. I believe someone can simply things without the person to spend hours to do research in order to participate. So with that said leave this thread open.
Then my question to you is how can you truly teach someone of this mentality? Especially when the instruction was already in plain sight:


Not to mention is the fact that personally I didn't address any CR user with a negative annotation about their individual intellects in the first place.


Dom lets try to be decent so the mods wont lock this thread or even ban us. The way you write Dom I dont know if you noticed it but it is kind of hard to understand and to me it looks like it is over simplified. So far two users came to this thread not having a clue what you are talking about and what you were getting at. One user you claimed to be acting foolish and needs to do their own research when he stated he wasn't trying not to argue with you at all but just get a simple answer out of you.

My suggestion is to write in a way in which many others can understand so we can be engaged in your topics. If not at least answer a simple question without making one feel like they are less intelligent then you are. Nobody is perfect, and many things we read and see we have questions for them thus we ask to find the answers. I dont want to dwell on this to much longer because it is off topic.


I'll make an assumption: English is hard for everyone to converse in. Many people state that it is the hardest language to learn. So if your own ability to speak it is a bit off, that's fine. Any fluent English speaker can immediately correct a discrepancy in someone's words, and assume what they were originally trying to say.
Posted 4/11/10 , edited 4/11/10
Isn't quoting yourself is a sign of skitzophrenia?


Everyone can assume an existence or a stance, when we all have sensory input organs for that function. However while assuming too little is a sign of ignorance, just assuming that whatever your senses are picking up is thereby automatically true is in and of itself lacking true intellect. When careless assumption can lead to bad decision making due to the existence of optical illusions, unrealistic expectations due to value bias, bad judgment due to poor statistics, all the way to decision paralysis due to too much choices(could that be the reason why the Republicans hate the 2300 pages long health care reform bill ).


lol @ we all have sensory input organs....

I agree with this for the most part, although I would have said it differently. What do you mean by bad judgements due to "poor statistics"? Your links are pretty useless, I'm not gonna watch a random 20 minute vid every time I reach a new word.

Also, the bill is not 2300 pages long, I think that was the last proposed bill, and republicans hate it the same reason the majority of Americans hate it, because it's a horrible bill.



In other words, just simply assuming "what" it is won't leads to the "how" or "why" it's there. And that's the inherent danger of careless generalization in the form of blanket statement; it creates a cognitive blind-spot up to the moment when reality blindsides rationality.

"Hatred leads to bias opinions, or do you think that compassion and understanding can result from hate?" -by me.


That's one of the stupidest quotes I've ever read. No offense, I'm just being honest.

Generalizing is a big problem today, especially when it comes to stereotypes invlving religion or ethnicity. And how can reality blindside rationality when rationality is based on reality?



As both a naturalist and an inspired sociologist, I'm greatly interested in the nature of humanity, with its adaptive and adoptive capabilities as social animals. And when illogical and irrational reasoning is closely related to ignorance and over generalization; the dual paradox of assumption. ]


What's an "inspired" sociologist? Do you have a socioogy degree, that you were "inspired" into getting?

ok, so the "dual paradox of assumption" is just when someone is being irrational because they are ignorant or generalizing. That's a pretty simple concept, I don't know why you have to make it seem like it's so complicated.


I'm beginning to draw relevancy on a lot of sociological deviancy in relation to how people individually make their decisions, based on what they collectively assumed as the social norms:

Deviance in a sociological context describes actions or behaviors that violate cultural norms including formally-enacted rules (e.g., crime) as well as informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting folkways). It is the purview of sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists to study how these norms are created, how they change over time and how they are enforced.(citation)


You're starting to see that people's deviant behaviour is related to how they make their decisions? Well that's a sociological breakthrough.




Now one theory on how the acts of deviance could happen is public moral panic caused by an influx of repetitive information, aka deviancy amplification spiral caused by the mass medias(citation). However this still doesn't explain to me how and why individually people just decided to act like this, until phantomkirby brought forth her findings to my attention:

People who hate Rationality
by phantomkirby on Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:38 am

I think this thread is long Edward overdue...
I find debating about certain topics is a good way to learn both sides of the story, and to find out more about the topic. However, I dislike it when there is NO REASONING INVOLVED! e.g. too much insulting, accusing, assuming, etc.

Insulting someone because they have a different belief than you is just not right. In anyway. Even if it's just a little side note. e.g. "oh that's wrong. but i guess i shouldn't expect much from you."

Accusing is fine, with valid facts. :/ like say "fast food makes you fat, because there is a lot of fat and calories in the majority of fast foods". It's not right when you say "twilight sucks because it just does". (Well, I do think twilight sucks, but you need support your points with proof!
This includes making witty remarks, trying to be better than whoever your debating with. :/ it doesn't make you look good. It just makes you look like a moron.
some witty remarks include-
-you make no sense
-your just jealuz!
-are you twelve?

Assuming; people do this all of the time. Assuming can be good (e.g. you have common sense to go by), but people do not use common sense when assuming. Below are three different types of assumptions.
case 1-the assumptions that intertwines accusing with insulting. ("your just jealous!")
case 2-they use their assumption without any proof ("twilightsucks is a website runned by stephen king")
case 3-its actually their opinion instead of a fact, but they still think its a fact (PINK IS AN UGLY COLOR!)

Irrelevancy- Basically, going off topic. My question is for you, why? saying something totally different makes no prancing sense?

Not using any references, sources, evidences, etc. - then you are assuming/accusing (read those two above)

tl;dr- don't be a Stephenie Meyer when debating (a.k.a. insulting/accusing others). and also, don't be someone who only goes by opinion, and no damn facts(assuming, accusing). Stay on topic (irrelevancy), and try to prove what you are persuading!(citation)
"Hate rationalizing", now that's an interesting concept IMO. And when thinking and reasoning are how biologically our brain working hard changing itself, a negative attitude towards rationalizing can thereby result in poor decision making. Furthermore, when this attitude towards rationalizing is being amplified by the internet circle, it became a social norm due to deviancy amplification spiral.


So this whole goddamn topic is just about people being irrational? This is not that complex of a topic, what is all this other unnecessary crap you put in.

Ok, I agree, lots of people are irrational for various reasons.
Posted 4/11/10

RisingEchoe wrote:

Isn't quoting yourself is a sign of skitzophrenia?


Everyone can assume an existence or a stance, when we all have sensory input organs for that function. However while assuming too little is a sign of ignorance, just assuming that whatever your senses are picking up is thereby automatically true is in and of itself lacking true intellect. When careless assumption can lead to bad decision making due to the existence of optical illusions, unrealistic expectations due to value bias, bad judgment due to poor statistics, all the way to decision paralysis due to too much choices(could that be the reason why the Republicans hate the 2300 pages long health care reform bill ).


lol @ we all have sensory input organs....

I agree with this for the most part, although I would have said it differently. What do you mean by bad judgements due to "poor statistics"? Your links are pretty useless, I'm not gonna watch a random 20 minute vid every time I reach a new word.

Also, the bill is not 2300 pages long, I think that was the last proposed bill, and republicans hate it the same reason the majority of Americans hate it, because it's a horrible bill.



In other words, just simply assuming "what" it is won't leads to the "how" or "why" it's there. And that's the inherent danger of careless generalization in the form of blanket statement; it creates a cognitive blind-spot up to the moment when reality blindsides rationality.

"Hatred leads to bias opinions, or do you think that compassion and understanding can result from hate?" -by me.


That's one of the stupidest quotes I've ever read. No offense, I'm just being honest.

Generalizing is a big problem today, especially when it comes to stereotypes invlving religion or ethnicity. And how can reality blindside rationality when rationality is based on reality?



As both a naturalist and an inspired sociologist, I'm greatly interested in the nature of humanity, with its adaptive and adoptive capabilities as social animals. And when illogical and irrational reasoning is closely related to ignorance and over generalization; the dual paradox of assumption. ]


What's an "inspired" sociologist? Do you have a socioogy degree, that you were "inspired" into getting?

ok, so the "dual paradox of assumption" is just when someone is being irrational because they are ignorant or generalizing. That's a pretty simple concept, I don't know why you have to make it seem like it's so complicated.


I'm beginning to draw relevancy on a lot of sociological deviancy in relation to how people individually make their decisions, based on what they collectively assumed as the social norms:

Deviance in a sociological context describes actions or behaviors that violate cultural norms including formally-enacted rules (e.g., crime) as well as informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting folkways). It is the purview of sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists to study how these norms are created, how they change over time and how they are enforced.(citation)


You're starting to see that people's deviant behaviour is related to how they make their decisions? Well that's a sociological breakthrough.




Now one theory on how the acts of deviance could happen is public moral panic caused by an influx of repetitive information, aka deviancy amplification spiral caused by the mass medias(citation). However this still doesn't explain to me how and why individually people just decided to act like this, until phantomkirby brought forth her findings to my attention:

People who hate Rationality
by phantomkirby on Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:38 am

I think this thread is long Edward overdue...
I find debating about certain topics is a good way to learn both sides of the story, and to find out more about the topic. However, I dislike it when there is NO REASONING INVOLVED! e.g. too much insulting, accusing, assuming, etc.

Insulting someone because they have a different belief than you is just not right. In anyway. Even if it's just a little side note. e.g. "oh that's wrong. but i guess i shouldn't expect much from you."

Accusing is fine, with valid facts. :/ like say "fast food makes you fat, because there is a lot of fat and calories in the majority of fast foods". It's not right when you say "twilight sucks because it just does". (Well, I do think twilight sucks, but you need support your points with proof!
This includes making witty remarks, trying to be better than whoever your debating with. :/ it doesn't make you look good. It just makes you look like a moron.
some witty remarks include-
-you make no sense
-your just jealuz!
-are you twelve?

Assuming; people do this all of the time. Assuming can be good (e.g. you have common sense to go by), but people do not use common sense when assuming. Below are three different types of assumptions.
case 1-the assumptions that intertwines accusing with insulting. ("your just jealous!")
case 2-they use their assumption without any proof ("twilightsucks is a website runned by stephen king")
case 3-its actually their opinion instead of a fact, but they still think its a fact (PINK IS AN UGLY COLOR!)

Irrelevancy- Basically, going off topic. My question is for you, why? saying something totally different makes no prancing sense?

Not using any references, sources, evidences, etc. - then you are assuming/accusing (read those two above)

tl;dr- don't be a Stephenie Meyer when debating (a.k.a. insulting/accusing others). and also, don't be someone who only goes by opinion, and no damn facts(assuming, accusing). Stay on topic (irrelevancy), and try to prove what you are persuading!(citation)
"Hate rationalizing", now that's an interesting concept IMO. And when thinking and reasoning are how biologically our brain working hard changing itself, a negative attitude towards rationalizing can thereby result in poor decision making. Furthermore, when this attitude towards rationalizing is being amplified by the internet circle, it became a social norm due to deviancy amplification spiral.


So this whole goddamn topic is just about people being irrational? This is not that complex of a topic, what is all this other unnecessary crap you put in.

Ok, I agree, lots of people are irrational for various reasons.


*Schizophrenia* lol
Posted 4/11/10

Glock45 wrote:


RisingEchoe wrote:

Isn't quoting yourself is a sign of skitzophrenia?


Everyone can assume an existence or a stance, when we all have sensory input organs for that function. However while assuming too little is a sign of ignorance, just assuming that whatever your senses are picking up is thereby automatically true is in and of itself lacking true intellect. When careless assumption can lead to bad decision making due to the existence of optical illusions, unrealistic expectations due to value bias, bad judgment due to poor statistics, all the way to decision paralysis due to too much choices(could that be the reason why the Republicans hate the 2300 pages long health care reform bill ).


lol @ we all have sensory input organs....

I agree with this for the most part, although I would have said it differently. What do you mean by bad judgements due to "poor statistics"? Your links are pretty useless, I'm not gonna watch a random 20 minute vid every time I reach a new word.

Also, the bill is not 2300 pages long, I think that was the last proposed bill, and republicans hate it the same reason the majority of Americans hate it, because it's a horrible bill.



In other words, just simply assuming "what" it is won't leads to the "how" or "why" it's there. And that's the inherent danger of careless generalization in the form of blanket statement; it creates a cognitive blind-spot up to the moment when reality blindsides rationality.

"Hatred leads to bias opinions, or do you think that compassion and understanding can result from hate?" -by me.


That's one of the stupidest quotes I've ever read. No offense, I'm just being honest.

Generalizing is a big problem today, especially when it comes to stereotypes invlving religion or ethnicity. And how can reality blindside rationality when rationality is based on reality?



As both a naturalist and an inspired sociologist, I'm greatly interested in the nature of humanity, with its adaptive and adoptive capabilities as social animals. And when illogical and irrational reasoning is closely related to ignorance and over generalization; the dual paradox of assumption. ]


What's an "inspired" sociologist? Do you have a socioogy degree, that you were "inspired" into getting?

ok, so the "dual paradox of assumption" is just when someone is being irrational because they are ignorant or generalizing. That's a pretty simple concept, I don't know why you have to make it seem like it's so complicated.


I'm beginning to draw relevancy on a lot of sociological deviancy in relation to how people individually make their decisions, based on what they collectively assumed as the social norms:

Deviance in a sociological context describes actions or behaviors that violate cultural norms including formally-enacted rules (e.g., crime) as well as informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting folkways). It is the purview of sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists to study how these norms are created, how they change over time and how they are enforced.(citation)


You're starting to see that people's deviant behaviour is related to how they make their decisions? Well that's a sociological breakthrough.




Now one theory on how the acts of deviance could happen is public moral panic caused by an influx of repetitive information, aka deviancy amplification spiral caused by the mass medias(citation). However this still doesn't explain to me how and why individually people just decided to act like this, until phantomkirby brought forth her findings to my attention:

People who hate Rationality
by phantomkirby on Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:38 am

I think this thread is long Edward overdue...
I find debating about certain topics is a good way to learn both sides of the story, and to find out more about the topic. However, I dislike it when there is NO REASONING INVOLVED! e.g. too much insulting, accusing, assuming, etc.

Insulting someone because they have a different belief than you is just not right. In anyway. Even if it's just a little side note. e.g. "oh that's wrong. but i guess i shouldn't expect much from you."

Accusing is fine, with valid facts. :/ like say "fast food makes you fat, because there is a lot of fat and calories in the majority of fast foods". It's not right when you say "twilight sucks because it just does". (Well, I do think twilight sucks, but you need support your points with proof!
This includes making witty remarks, trying to be better than whoever your debating with. :/ it doesn't make you look good. It just makes you look like a moron.
some witty remarks include-
-you make no sense
-your just jealuz!
-are you twelve?

Assuming; people do this all of the time. Assuming can be good (e.g. you have common sense to go by), but people do not use common sense when assuming. Below are three different types of assumptions.
case 1-the assumptions that intertwines accusing with insulting. ("your just jealous!")
case 2-they use their assumption without any proof ("twilightsucks is a website runned by stephen king")
case 3-its actually their opinion instead of a fact, but they still think its a fact (PINK IS AN UGLY COLOR!)

Irrelevancy- Basically, going off topic. My question is for you, why? saying something totally different makes no prancing sense?

Not using any references, sources, evidences, etc. - then you are assuming/accusing (read those two above)

tl;dr- don't be a Stephenie Meyer when debating (a.k.a. insulting/accusing others). and also, don't be someone who only goes by opinion, and no damn facts(assuming, accusing). Stay on topic (irrelevancy), and try to prove what you are persuading!(citation)
"Hate rationalizing", now that's an interesting concept IMO. And when thinking and reasoning are how biologically our brain working hard changing itself, a negative attitude towards rationalizing can thereby result in poor decision making. Furthermore, when this attitude towards rationalizing is being amplified by the internet circle, it became a social norm due to deviancy amplification spiral.


So this whole goddamn topic is just about people being irrational? This is not that complex of a topic, what is all this other unnecessary crap you put in.

Ok, I agree, lots of people are irrational for various reasons.


*Schizophrenia* lol


You shouldn't laugh at skizophrenia, it's a serious mental disorder that affects millions.
Posted 4/11/10

RisingEchoe wrote:


Glock45 wrote:


RisingEchoe wrote:

Isn't quoting yourself is a sign of skitzophrenia?


Everyone can assume an existence or a stance, when we all have sensory input organs for that function. However while assuming too little is a sign of ignorance, just assuming that whatever your senses are picking up is thereby automatically true is in and of itself lacking true intellect. When careless assumption can lead to bad decision making due to the existence of optical illusions, unrealistic expectations due to value bias, bad judgment due to poor statistics, all the way to decision paralysis due to too much choices(could that be the reason why the Republicans hate the 2300 pages long health care reform bill ).


lol @ we all have sensory input organs....

I agree with this for the most part, although I would have said it differently. What do you mean by bad judgements due to "poor statistics"? Your links are pretty useless, I'm not gonna watch a random 20 minute vid every time I reach a new word.

Also, the bill is not 2300 pages long, I think that was the last proposed bill, and republicans hate it the same reason the majority of Americans hate it, because it's a horrible bill.



In other words, just simply assuming "what" it is won't leads to the "how" or "why" it's there. And that's the inherent danger of careless generalization in the form of blanket statement; it creates a cognitive blind-spot up to the moment when reality blindsides rationality.

"Hatred leads to bias opinions, or do you think that compassion and understanding can result from hate?" -by me.


That's one of the stupidest quotes I've ever read. No offense, I'm just being honest.

Generalizing is a big problem today, especially when it comes to stereotypes invlving religion or ethnicity. And how can reality blindside rationality when rationality is based on reality?



As both a naturalist and an inspired sociologist, I'm greatly interested in the nature of humanity, with its adaptive and adoptive capabilities as social animals. And when illogical and irrational reasoning is closely related to ignorance and over generalization; the dual paradox of assumption. ]


What's an "inspired" sociologist? Do you have a socioogy degree, that you were "inspired" into getting?

ok, so the "dual paradox of assumption" is just when someone is being irrational because they are ignorant or generalizing. That's a pretty simple concept, I don't know why you have to make it seem like it's so complicated.


I'm beginning to draw relevancy on a lot of sociological deviancy in relation to how people individually make their decisions, based on what they collectively assumed as the social norms:

Deviance in a sociological context describes actions or behaviors that violate cultural norms including formally-enacted rules (e.g., crime) as well as informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting folkways). It is the purview of sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists to study how these norms are created, how they change over time and how they are enforced.(citation)


You're starting to see that people's deviant behaviour is related to how they make their decisions? Well that's a sociological breakthrough.




Now one theory on how the acts of deviance could happen is public moral panic caused by an influx of repetitive information, aka deviancy amplification spiral caused by the mass medias(citation). However this still doesn't explain to me how and why individually people just decided to act like this, until phantomkirby brought forth her findings to my attention:

People who hate Rationality
by phantomkirby on Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:38 am

I think this thread is long Edward overdue...
I find debating about certain topics is a good way to learn both sides of the story, and to find out more about the topic. However, I dislike it when there is NO REASONING INVOLVED! e.g. too much insulting, accusing, assuming, etc.

Insulting someone because they have a different belief than you is just not right. In anyway. Even if it's just a little side note. e.g. "oh that's wrong. but i guess i shouldn't expect much from you."

Accusing is fine, with valid facts. :/ like say "fast food makes you fat, because there is a lot of fat and calories in the majority of fast foods". It's not right when you say "twilight sucks because it just does". (Well, I do think twilight sucks, but you need support your points with proof!
This includes making witty remarks, trying to be better than whoever your debating with. :/ it doesn't make you look good. It just makes you look like a moron.
some witty remarks include-
-you make no sense
-your just jealuz!
-are you twelve?

Assuming; people do this all of the time. Assuming can be good (e.g. you have common sense to go by), but people do not use common sense when assuming. Below are three different types of assumptions.
case 1-the assumptions that intertwines accusing with insulting. ("your just jealous!")
case 2-they use their assumption without any proof ("twilightsucks is a website runned by stephen king")
case 3-its actually their opinion instead of a fact, but they still think its a fact (PINK IS AN UGLY COLOR!)

Irrelevancy- Basically, going off topic. My question is for you, why? saying something totally different makes no prancing sense?

Not using any references, sources, evidences, etc. - then you are assuming/accusing (read those two above)

tl;dr- don't be a Stephenie Meyer when debating (a.k.a. insulting/accusing others). and also, don't be someone who only goes by opinion, and no damn facts(assuming, accusing). Stay on topic (irrelevancy), and try to prove what you are persuading!(citation)
"Hate rationalizing", now that's an interesting concept IMO. And when thinking and reasoning are how biologically our brain working hard changing itself, a negative attitude towards rationalizing can thereby result in poor decision making. Furthermore, when this attitude towards rationalizing is being amplified by the internet circle, it became a social norm due to deviancy amplification spiral.


So this whole goddamn topic is just about people being irrational? This is not that complex of a topic, what is all this other unnecessary crap you put in.

Ok, I agree, lots of people are irrational for various reasons.


*Schizophrenia* lol


You shouldn't laugh at skizophrenia, it's a serious mental disorder that affects millions.


I assume that you are a troll, and thus, I will not feed you. thnxbai
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.