The SELF-FULFILLING … Uhhhhmmm … FLOPACY!
The SELF-FULFILLING FLOPACY, or, to put it another way
If you can't refute a position stated in a DISCUSSION/THREAD/COMMENT, do one or all of the following
1) "Rebut" with (i.e.) -- "Bullshit," or, "LOL" or "that's just your opinion" or any combination or variation on those themes, AND
2) DO NOT ACTUALLY ADD DOCUMENTATION THAT MIGHT EVEN REMOTELY REBUT WHAT YOU ARE OTHERWISE you know pretending to rebut, and
3) Either as a quip, one-liner, seemingly pithy comment rife with buzz words, talking points, and/or uncredited quotes that generate responses like "Huh?", "WTF," shovel in additional nothingness and finally
4) Outright declare you have won the debate, call the member with whom you disagree some disparaging name, indicate that the member is just like all of the others (whom you'd refer to by the same disparaging name) and wrap it all up with some off-handed dismissal such as "Any one can disagree with anything and that doesn't mean shit" -- even though you, yourself will have essentially described what you have done by way of your comment.
Notice that the threads here on NT are supposed to be "DISCUSSIONS." That means they are
the actions or processes of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas
Going forward as I encounter responses like 1) - 4), I may link back to this DISCUSSION rather than enter one of the many pissin' contest non-rebuttal-rebuttals. By all means, feel free to ACTUALLY rebut anything I post with COUNTER POINTS and not that which I have listed above.
SELF-FULFILLING FLOPACY -- it's meaning unlike
A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior.
in the case in which a member declares or implies victory, superiority, having gained the upper hand or having taken the high road, etc., while failing to furnish any relevant information in a debate/discussion that might justify such a declaration be prepared for me to refer you back to this article and apprise you of your FLOPACY.
If it's just talk and no substance, any prophetic chest-pounding signifying ultimate victory is just
BULLSHIT! LOL! *
___________________________________________________
* See what I've done here? FIRST, I laid out my points in a logical sequence -- and, I explained my position clearly and specifically. That gave me justification to end the article as I did.
There's a lot of this going on . Do you have any suggestions about what to do about it ?
Petey,
My article details what I intend to do about it. If we're not taking overt CoC violations then we're talking about the annoying kinds of comments that drive people away from discussions, not necessarily because they are offensive (although that's part of it), rather because they are annoying, disingenuous and cop outs often intended to get the last word without making a valid point.
If someone responds with a comment like, "We disagree," I respect that and know that the dialogue between myself and that member is finished. But if I get a direct or veiled criticism like -- "any one can cherry pick a trial verdict" -- but there's no point-for-point rebuttal after I've given numerous specific issues (picked cherries), that's a shot at me for merely raising the issues.
OK fair enough . I have a feeling that will not be an effective deterrent though . In any case I don't have as much problem with the above as I do with someone who actually admits they are uninterested in the opposition position . In other words they admit to a "failure to communicate" . What is the point of a convo if one party absolutely refuses to listen/read the opposition position ?
Probably not but if/when I cease a dialogue for any/all of my stated reasons, I can walk away knowing that I gave fair warning.
Agreed. But what some people believe to be "communicating," is in reality, "failure to communicate".
Although true it is a slightly harder call to make . Just like determining fraud in financial transactions is harder than say , an armed robbery crime . I expect some of those "quips" may actually be on point . And they are often not the initiating comm . When someone posts fallacious links that is often when the $#!+ hits the fan .
That sounds like a fun game ... Does this also apply to someone who has taken one course in basic ethics and sees phoney moral violations everywhere ?
Not necessarily true in all cases; opinions can be based solidly on fact and while they may protract beyond the fact(s) upon which they are based, opinions can be logical and, over time, even prove to become factual.
At one time, Copernicus expressed the, then "opinion", that the earth and other objects revolved around the sun -- a heliocentric rather than a geocentric model. In its time, it was considered revolutionary and many rejected the concept as "opinion" and, incorrect at that.
Years later, Galileo demonstrated that Copernicus was correct, observing that the moons of Jupiter revolved around Jupiter and not the sun -- for which the Church threatened to torture him.
Big difference. Plagiarism is the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Paraphrasing, as long as the original wording is credited, is rewording without changing the original meaning -- often done for the sake of clarity. There's not a damned thing wrong with citing facts and/or opinions to validate one's own opinion or position. Research paper protocol insists on it!
Shall we simply reject all knowledge that is not our own original, empirical discovery? Some of us would have virtually nothing to say were that the case.
Block quoting, posting links, placing quotation marks and citing sources indicate both the intention not to plagiarize and an effort to validate a position. Much "new" knowledge comes from knowledge that has preceded it. There is no shame in standing on the shoulders of giants -- there is much potential shame in plagiarizing their knowledge or believing that if one's ideas aren't original -- they're somehow not ready for a forum like NT.
I never indicated that I was a master-de-bater, but when I have something to say, I say it. Frankly, agreement or counterpoints are not necessarily relevant to me. I will read them though and some have actually carved a place in my twisted way of thinking. Others are just plain LMAO funny and yet someare very nice reading. It's just a news, blog, community folks, don't think too much on it, you'll hurt your self image(s).
AMac as usual there is no doubt where you stand.I respect that position sir and you have an eye for the natural.
What has this got to do with you ?
And that ain't all
I have no issue with witty comments when they're intended to express humor; as for censorship -- in this context/forum, I'm only looking to limit objectionable or harmful comments and not the suppression of ideas; there's no upside to style that offends for no other purpose than to be offensive.
What you regard as my "obsession" is a matter of respecting AND MAINTAINING OUR MEMBERS WHO CAN AND SOMETIMES DO LEAVE BECAUSE OF UNNECESSARILY OBNOXIOUS COMMENTARY.
If it was just you and me, Robert, in a one-on-one debate, I'd say "take your best shot and I'll give it right back to you." But this is a site that depends on members participating and not being personally insulted merely for voicing a disparate opinion.
Oh my, lost again. I thought this one was on the Papacy............suddenly gays are OK, since Pope Francis found out there were some in the higher up spots. Well, I guess the poor man tries, after all...........
Sorry, MAC, did not mean to derail. I have read your comment and will be back on topic tomorrow. Thank you for more explanations.
Opinions, forum wise, are strange animals. By its very nature, an opinion does not need to be substantiated or qualified especially if the forum allows or encourages people to voice their opinions.
You can ask a person to explain an opinion but informally, they are not required to supply one. Sometimes, even if they do qualify a remark, it still isnt an arguable statement.
When an opinion is predicated by another statement that can be viewed as factually ambiguous, then it can be challenged.
Note: While not the most polite word, asshole can be the vernacular (slang) but it also lowers, the dignity of formal or serious speech or writing", meaning dont use it in formal discourse. It can be acceptable for a forum, in order to indicate a writers level of emotion.
I personally support meaningless, obnoxious, infantile and pejorative statements as a matter a free expression, but to a point. I also support a persons right to completely ignore them, without any response.
I think the harder task would be to find a prior president who did not lie . George Washington about his "cherry tree incident " ?
NV allowed ugliness via personal attacks, gangbang reporting and resulting deletions to become prevalent if not dominant; while much of the content was hard-hitting -- often partisan, biased, ideological and just plain offensive (a subjective phenomenon), many of those posting such articles/seeds were vitriolic towards opposing points of view, personally insulting and mean-spirited.
Content generally and for the most part was not restricted/censored as a matter of NV policy, BUT, the practice of "gangbanging"/orchestrated-reporting-with-an-agenda -- at times, amounted to censoring; and that, because of moderation/administration failure to reign it in, was the beginning of an exodus of some proportion.
Imagine, for example, a diner that advertised as follows:
"GOOD FOOD, LOTS OF IT, LIVELY CONVERSATION IF YOU ARE SO INCLINED, DIRTY RESTROOMS AND A NUMBER OF OBNOXIOUS, INSULTING, REGULAR CUSTOMERS!"
I don't want The NewsTalkers to become that diner. We can have GOOD FOOD (for thought), LOTS OF IT. LIVELY CONVERSATION IF WE ARE SO INCLINED -- all without a clientele that pisses on the floor and insults those with whom they disagree.
[Cough]
I am an avid debater and would do more, if I had the time. Maybe I should. I don't worry if my opinions offend my friends. If they really ARE my friends, they accept me for who I am. If they are not, they will get to know who I am.
BF,
I think that opinions are fine. They have their place in a discussion. But sometimes I see junk, and I do mean junk, that is just total BS and that I do counter with links. But I think that when links are used, they should be as clean of partisanship as possible, otherwise, you might be passing on your own junk.
LAMO!
1) Links - Hyperlinks are short-cuts to longer and/or ancillary information. Most intelligent users, rather than cut 'n' paste an entire article on their post, link to the source as opposed to making their post look like garrulous, hard to read glop. Given the limitations of many text editors (like this one), hyperlinks (links) is the way to go.
I'll read/watch a source when it's linked. Many don't. Therein lays the difference between a well informed poster and one who is intellectually incompetent.
2) Biased Sources - The source is not as important as the content, which is why people need to read them. There are "key facts" an article must contain and then there is the style in which the facts are editorialized.
If a person disregards the facts of an article or report simply because they perceive the source is biased, they don't belong in the discussion, unless they can prove the core facts are in error...which they can't do unless they read the article;...Catch-22.
Biased comes in the editorializing of a news fact. For example;
AP original reports - Christ walked on water in the Sea of Galilee
Fox News reports - Christ Can't Swim.
It doesn't matter what the headline even says because as I demonstrated, it can be misleading, which is part of editorializing a fact.
But, you know, we need a good dose of plain old fun and humor every day. Smiles and laughter are good for all of us. Sometimes the humorless folks hereabouts get us all to suffering needlessly. Just my humble opinion. I love to laugh and have a good time as well as think about things that are important to me.
Ah, see Randy.. you said screed. Now I miss Mike.
Imagine, for example, a diner that advertised as follows:
"GOOD FOOD, LOTS OF IT, LIVELY CONVERSATION IF YOU ARE SO INCLINED, DIRTY RESTROOMS AND A NUMBER OF OBNOXIOUS, INSULTING, REGULAR CUSTOMERS!"
I don't want The NewsTalkers to become that diner. We can have GOOD FOOD (for thought), LOTS OF IT. LIVELY CONVERSATION IF WE ARE SO INCLINED -- all without a clientele that pisses on the floor and insults those with whom they disagree.
Wouldn't that just make him a liar and not necessarily an AH? People lie every day of their lives, and most of the time it serves a purpose. BTW Petey is right. All presidents lie, even if it's the lie of omission.
Agreed.
BF,
Your comment, priceless!
Articles & Seeds Started (1888)
Little known fact , the internet was installed at the same time as the crosscontinental railroads !
Recently I posted a list of links to prove a point. The content of the linked articles were not important as much as the source.
Then there are those who think that if they throw enough shit at the wall, something might stick and so they toss out links like crazy.
Not in every case. Certain opinions are entirely subjective and accepted as such without need for "correction" or rebuttal.
Example: "Chocolate ice cream tastes better than any other flavor." That's understood to mean "Chocolate ice cream tastes better (to me personally) than any other flavor." And there is nothing objective that can contradict it.
But how about an opinion such as: "The reason there are so few female CEO's is because women can't make important decisions."
Is there any reasonable person who will hear such an opinion and not take issue, find and list statistics and examples that imply otherwise?
As for calling someone i.e. an "asshole," agreed that the incorporation of vernacular/colloquialisms into an attempt to categorize a person an or his/her actions complicates matters.
The term "asshole" (beyond its anatomical features) has become so commonly used, that its acquired dictionary definition status :
asshole (
s
h
l
)
IMO, if one must ascribe a pejorative name to an individual or action, first MAKE THE CASE and then, lay it on its owner. BUT someone who opens his case with name-calling without quickly and thoroughly making it, or, without making it at all now that's
An ASSHOLE!
Well , you don't :
Not even close .
Gene,
We have no rule about how many seeds a person puts up. Mike and wmolaw used to put up 5 or more at a time. If they grab interest, they stay on the board. If they don't, then they fall off very quickly.
Two edged sword flash . You've earned it . Your statement is unsupportable .
Childish is preceding an unsupportable statement with "obviously" .
I am unsure why you and Grump made the statement in the first place.
That's because you're a cleaver little fish.
I'm beginning to think that was the point of this whole business about how many seeds he puts up.
This is true. I call it the "Hitler Rule". Say a lie long enough and people start to think that it's the truth.
HEY BF!!!!!
YOU FORGET. I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK!!!!!!
Gene.
Huh? I am utter confused.
Randy,
Agree with what?
There needs to be an opinion stated, to agree with it, of which I saw none.
And BF, you better watch it, or I'll put a hook in your mouth.... you bad fish!
OK . I'll own up to my comment as being spiteful and petty . But do I regret closing comments ? Not at all . I was presented with some of the most disparaging rejection of open communication I've ever seen . Next time I will still close comments but I'll do it in a less petty way . FYI here is the crappy comment that broke the camel's back :
That's right . He rejected my argument before I even presented it . Time to close comments ...
OK . I'll admit that was petty and spiteful but I had my reasons :
Not to derail an interesting discussion (interesting because I am now awake and no longer coughing my lungs out), but would someone be so kind as to answer a technical question? How does one link to a particular comment as Petey just did? I know how to link to an article, but have never figured out how to do it with a specific comment. Thanks for any help.
[slaps forehead]
Sounds like a plan.
You're just looking for an excuse to get nakid.
Thanks John. Never done that one before.
Fish,
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY would ever wish to see me naked. Such a sight could easily emotionally scar someone for life.
Traditionally, the thing to do on Internet sites is to have moderators handle this-- usually by taking action against people who are creating problems. Anything from a mild warning in private, to a public warning, to a brief suspension, to outright banning, etc. The degree of severity and style of moderation on different sites vary.
This is necessary and can be to some degree effective if done well. However, there is another thing that can also be done, and I believe it was used a lot on NT from the beginning (except for one sort of "stand yer ground" type: have members realize that in addition to moderators, they too can have a tremendous impact on the tone of the site. This means understanding how their behaviour effects the site, and be wanting to help by trying to be courteous to others with opposing views. To listen as well as talk, to realize that just because someone has a different opinion it does not mean that they are a total idiot!
And if they want to help improve the site and then realize a few ways that their behaviour can help to improve--make the choice to have some restraint--self discipline.
(Some people feel if that can't rant and rave and engage in nasty personal attacks, that their "freedom of speech" is somehow restricted. But you can still make the same points without being such a nasty "drama queen").
"I'd like to know who these people are who are harassing you."
John,
I was asked at one point to "name-names" -- I declined and in essence explained that "since a number of our members have stated the type of commentary they find objectionable, a word-to-the-wise should suffice."
I was MOCKED for my diplomacy.
History repeats itself!
And so, John, we see that it's not necessary to name-names.
And since Robert G never misses an opportunity to serve as the bad example, he should be given props for assisting us in exemplifying that which drives members, if not altogether off of the site, then, to the more civil areas within.
Like it or not, agree with it or not Robert G, some members don't appreciate your self-ascribed "uncensored" style and right to express yourself offensively.
You have every right to be annoying and our members have every right to be critical or walk away. If you "drill holes" in the metaphorical deck of your section of the boat," you may sink us all.
On the other hand, I think we are driving people away who do not have a rusty pipe imbedded in their ass, and encouraging a tyranny of the hyper-sensitive. Who claim that their natural desire for dictatorial control is instead done "for the good of the people."
Ah, the "fighting tyranny" defense. How the fuck is acceding the expressed concerns of the membership "dictatorial control."
If it's democracy you truly respect, then allow those who find your manner offensive and unnecessary, to enjoy their rights.
Quoting Patch Adams: "You don't have to be a prick to get things done."
If/when you have the high ground based on the veracity of your position, instead of saying (i.e.) -- "I'm right and you're stupid so fuck you dumb ass," try going with (i.e.) "I'm correct by virtue of the facts, which are ".
LAMO?
Laughing Amish Muslim Orator?